ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2016
A no-gold-standard technique for objective assessment of quantitative nuclear-medicine imaging methods.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing evaluation of quantitative imaging methods using reference standards versus regression‑without‑truth‑based technique.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026Article
- Extending Regression Without Truth to Integrate Ground-Truth Measurements for Evaluating Quantitative Imaging Methods with Patient Data.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026Article
- Beyond efficacy parity: a novel cost-equilibrium framework for value assessment of competing third-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- ISIT-QA: In Silico Imaging Trial to Evaluate a Low-Count Quantitative SPECT Method Across Multiple Scanner-Collimator Configurations forJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024Article
- Need for Objective Task-Based Evaluation of Image Segmentation Algorithms for Quantitative PET: A Study with ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235 Multicenter Clinical Trial Data.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024Article
- How accurately can quantitative imaging methods be ranked without ground truth: An upper bound on no-gold-standard evaluation.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024Article
- Need for objective task-based evaluation of deep learning-based denoising methods: A study in the context of myocardial perfusion SPECT.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Observer-study-based approaches to quantitatively evaluate the realism of synthetic medical images.Physics in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Need for objective task-based evaluation of AI-based segmentation methods for quantitative PET.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2023Article
- Carotid atherosclerotic plaque segmentation in multi-weighted MRI using a two-stage neural network: advantages of training with high-resolution imaging and histology.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- A Projection-Domain Low-Count Quantitative SPECT Method forIEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2023Article
- Nuclear Medicine and Artificial Intelligence: Best Practices for Evaluation (the RELAINCE Guidelines).Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022Article
- A tissue-fraction estimation-based segmentation method for quantitative dopamine transporter SPECT.Medical physics · 2022Article
- A physics and learning-based transmission-less attenuation compensation method for SPECT.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2021Article
- Task-based assessment of binned and list-mode SPECT systems.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2021Article
- A LIST-MODE OSEM-BASED ATTENUATION AND SCATTER COMPENSATION METHOD FOR SPECT.Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging · 2020Article
- Bayesian framework inspired no-reference region-of-interest quality measure for brain MRI images.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2017Article
- No-gold-standard evaluation of image-acquisition methods using patient data.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2017Article
- Practical no-gold-standard evaluation framework for quantitative imaging methods: application to lesion segmentation in positron emission tomography.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2017Article
- No-gold-standard evaluation of quantitative imaging methods in the presence of correlated noise.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical EngineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective optimization and evaluation of nuclear-medicine quantitative imaging methods using patient data is highly desirable but often hindered by the lack of a gold standard. Previously, a regression-without-truth (RWT) approach has been proposed for evaluating quantitative imaging methods in the absence of a gold standard, but this approach implicitly assumes that bounds on the distribution of true values are known. Several quantitative imaging methods in nuclear-medicine imaging measure parameters where these bounds are not known, such as the activity concentration in an organ or the volume of a tumor. We extended upon the RWT approach to develop a no-gold-standard (NGS) technique for objectively evaluating such quantitative nuclear-medicine imaging methods with patient data in the absence of any ground truth. Using the parameters estimated with the NGS technique, a figure of merit, the noise-to-slope ratio (NSR), can be computed, which can rank the methods on the basis of precision. An issue with NGS evaluation techniques is the requirement of a large number of patient studies. To reduce this requirement, the proposed method explored the use of multiple quantitative measurements from the same patient, such as the activity concentration values from different organs in the same patient. The proposed technique was evaluated using rigorous numerical experiments and using data from realistic simulation studies. The numerical experiments demonstrated that the NSR was estimated accurately using the proposed NGS technique when the bounds on the distribution of true values were not precisely known, thus serving as a very reliable metric for ranking the methods on the basis of precision. In the realistic simulation study, the NGS technique was used to rank reconstruction methods for quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) based on their performance on the task of estimating the mean activity concentration within a known volume of interest. Results showed that the proposed technique provided accurate ranking of the reconstruction methods for 97.5% of the 50 noise realizations. Further, the technique was robust to the choice of evaluated reconstruction methods. The simulation study pointed to possible violations of the assumptions made in the NGS technique under clinical scenarios. However, numerical experiments indicated that the NGS technique was robust in ranking methods even when there was some degree of such violation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.