ArticleNeuroImage2021
Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging.
Article in NeuroImage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Registration accuracy of amyloid/tau-PET to brain MRI using modified SPM method.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of image preprocessing pipelines for the Centiloid method on Down Syndrome data.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Centiloid values from deep learning-based CT parcellation: a valid alternative to freesurfer.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2025Article
- Automated quantification of brain PET in PET/CT using deep learning-based CT-to-MR translation: a feasibility study.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Article
- MRI-based Deep Learning Models for Preoperative Breast Volume and Density Assessment Assisting Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Uncertain prediction of deformable image registration on lung CT using multi-category features and supervised learning.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024Article
- Combining multimodal connectivity information improves modelling of pathology spread in Alzheimer's disease.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Advanced quantitative evaluation of PET systems using the ACR phantom and NiftyPET software.Medical physics · 2022Article
- The amyloid imaging for the prevention of Alzheimer's disease consortium: A European collaboration with global impact.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate regional brain quantitative PET measurements, particularly when using partial volume correction, rely on robust image registration between PET and MR images. We argue here that the precision, and hence the uncertainty, of MR-PET image registration is mainly driven by the registration implementation and the quality of PET images due to their lower resolution and higher noise compared to the structural MR images. We propose a dedicated uncertainty analysis for quantifying the precision of MR-PET registration, centred around the bootstrap resampling of PET list-mode events to generate multiple PET image realisations with different noise (count) levels. The effects of PET image reconstruction parameters, such as the use of attenuation and scatter corrections and different number of iterations, on the precision and accuracy of MR-PET registration were investigated. In addition, the performance of four software packages with their default settings for rigid inter-modality image registration were considered: NiftyReg, Vinci, FSL and SPM. Four distinct PET image distributions made of two early time frames (similar to cortical FDG) and two late frames using two amyloid PET dynamic acquisitions of one amyloid positive and one amyloid negative participants were investigated. For the investigated four PET frames, the biggest impact on the uncertainty was observed between registration software packages (up to 10-fold difference in precision) followed by the reconstruction parameters. On average, the lowest uncertainty for different PET frames and brain regions was observed with SPM and two iterations of fully quantitative image reconstruction. The observed uncertainty for the varying PET count-level (from 5% to 60%) was slightly lower than for the reconstruction parameters. We also observed that the registration uncertainty in quantitative PET analysis depends on amyloid status of the considered PET frames, with increased uncertainty (up to three times) when using post-reconstruction partial volume correction. This analysis is applicable for PET data obtained from either PET/MR or PET/CT scanners.
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.