Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25634260›Full record

ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2015

Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Blob-Based Time-of-Flight PET Image Reconstruction in Hybrid Brain PET/MR Imaging.

Eva L Leemans, Fotis Kotasidis, Michael Wissmeyer, Valentina Garibotto, Habib Zaidi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eva L LeemansDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Fotis KotasidisDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Michael WissmeyerDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Valentina GaribottoDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Habib ZaidiDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland. habib.zaidi@hcuge.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany neurological diseases affect small structures in the brain and, as such, reliable visual evaluation and accurate quantification are required. Recent technological developments made the clinical use of hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) systems possible, providing both functional and anatomical information in a single imaging session. Nevertheless, there is a trade-off between spatial resolution and image quality (contrast and noise), which is dictated mainly by the chosen acquisition and reconstruction protocols. Image reconstruction algorithms using spherical symmetric basis functions (blobs) for image representation have a number of additional parameters that impact both the qualitative and quantitative image characteristics. Hence, a detailed investigation of the blob-based reconstruction characteristics using different parameters is needed to achieve optimal reconstruction results. PROCEDURES: This work evaluated the impact of a range of blob parameters on image quality and quantitative accuracy of brain PET images acquired on the Ingenuity Time-of-Flight (TOF) PET/MR system. Two different phantoms were used to simulate brain imaging applications. Image contrast and noise characteristics were assessed using an image quality phantom. Quantitative performance in a clinical setting was investigated using the Hoffman 3D brain phantom at various count levels. Furthermore, the visual quality of four clinical studies was scored blindly by two experienced physicians to qualitatively evaluate the influence of different reconstruction protocols, hereby providing indications on parameters producing the best image quality.

resultsQuantitative evaluation using the image quality phantom showed that larger basis function radii result in lower contrast recovery (∼2%) and lower variance levels (∼15%). The brain phantom and clinical studies confirmed these observations since lower contrast was seen between anatomical structures. High and low count statistics gave comparable values. The qualitative evaluation of the clinical studies, based on the assessment performed by the physicians, showed a preference towards lower image variance levels with a slightly lower contrast, favoring higher radii and four iterations.

conclusionThis study systematically evaluated a number of basis function parameters and their quantitative and qualitative effect within PET image reconstruction in the context of brain imaging. A range of blob parameters can minimize error and provided optimal image quality, where the anatomical structures could be recognized but the exact delineation of these structures is simplified in scans with lower image variance levels and thus, higher radii should be preferred. With the optimization of blob parameters, the reconstructed images were found to be qualitatively improved (optimum parameters {d = 2.0375, alpha = 10.4101, radius = 3.9451}) as assessed by the physicians compared to the current clinical protocol. However, this qualitative improvement is task specific, depending on the desired image characteristics to be extracted. Finally, this work could be used as a guide for application-specific optimal parameter selection.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrainDementiaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhantoms, ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyBlobsContrastImage reconstructionNoisePET/MRIVisual quality

Identifiers

PMID25634260
PMCPMC4768229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.