ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2019
Quantitative Intensity Harmonization of Dopamine Transporter SPECT Images Using Gamma Mixture Models.
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiomics prognostic analysis of PET/CT images in a multicenter head and neck cancer cohort: investigating ComBat strategies, sub-volume characterization, and automatic segmentation.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Data harmonisation for information fusion in digital healthcare: A state-of-the-art systematic review, meta-analysis and future research directions.An international journal on information fusion · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDifferences in site, device, and/or settings may cause large variations in the intensity profile of dopamine transporter (DAT) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images. However, the current standard to evaluate these images, the striatal binding ratio (SBR), does not efficiently account for this heterogeneity and the assessment can be unequivalent across distinct acquisition pipelines. In this work, we present a voxel-based automated approach to intensity normalize such type of data that improves on cross-session interpretation. PROCEDURES: The normalization method consists of a reparametrization of the voxel values based on the cumulative density function (CDF) of a Gamma distribution modeling the specific region intensity. The harmonization ability was tested in 1342 SPECT images from the PPMI repository, acquired with 7 distinct gamma camera models and at 24 different sites. We compared the striatal quantification across distinct cameras for raw intensities, SBR values, and after applying the Gamma CDF (GDCF) harmonization. As a proof-of-concept, we evaluated the impact of GCDF normalization in a classification task between controls and Parkinson disease patients.
resultsRaw striatal intensities and SBR values presented significant differences across distinct camera models. We demonstrate that GCDF normalization efficiently alleviated these differences in striatal quantification and with values constrained to a fixed interval [0, 1]. Also, our method allowed a fully automated image assessment that provided maximal classification ability, given by an area under the curve (AUC) of AUC = 0.94 when used mean regional variables and AUC = 0.98 when used voxel-based variables.
conclusionThe GCDF normalization method is useful to standardize the intensity of DAT SPECT images in an automated fashion and enables the development of unbiased algorithms using multicenter datasets. This method may constitute a key pre-processing step in the analysis of this type of images.
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.