Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33588030›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging.

Pawel J Markiewicz, Julian C Matthews, John Ashburner, David M Cash, David L Thomas, Enrico De Vita, Anna Barnes, M Jorge Cardoso, Marc Modat, Richard Brown and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

19 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Pawel J MarkiewiczCentre for Medical Image Computing; Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London Gower Street WC1E 6BT, London, UK; School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK. Electronic address: http://www.nmi.cs.ucl.ac.uk.
Julian C MatthewsDivision of Neuroscience & Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, UK.
John AshburnerWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK.
David M CashDementia Research Centre, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK.
David L ThomasWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK; Dementia Research Centre, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK.
Enrico De VitaSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Anna BarnesInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
M Jorge CardosoSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Marc ModatSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Richard BrownInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Kris ThielemansInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Casper da Costa-LuisSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK; Centre for Medical Image Computing; Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London Gower Street WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
Isadora Lopes AlvesAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Juan Domingo GispertBarcelonaßeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain; IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Bioingeniería, Biomateriales y Nanomedicina (CIBER-BBN), Madrid, Spain.
Mark E SchmidtJanssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.
Paul MarsdenSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Alexander HammersSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Sebastien OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Frederik BarkhofCentre for Medical Image Computing; Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London Gower Street WC1E 6BT, London, UK; Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
King's College London · GBUniversity College London · GBAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging · GBBiomedical Research Networking Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine · ESJanssen (Belgium) · BEUK Dementia Research Institute · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/N013042/1Medical Research Council MR/N025792/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203147/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 203148/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

UncertaintyAgedBrainCohort StudiesFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyAlzheimer’ diseaseAmyloidMRPartial volume correctionPETPrecisionRegistration

Identifiers

PMID33588030
PMCPMC8204268
OpenAlexW3131120480

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.