Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33951598›Full record

ArticleMedical image analysis2021

Imitation learning for improved 3D PET/MR attenuation correction.

Kerstin Kläser, Thomas Varsavsky, Pawel Markiewicz, Tom Vercauteren, Alexander Hammers, David Atkinson, Kris Thielemans, Brian Hutton, M J Cardoso, Sébastien Ourselin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical image analysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Attenuation correction for human PET/MRI studies.Physics in medicine and biology · 2020
    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

10 authors.

Kerstin KläserDepartment of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London SE1 7EH, UK. Electronic address: kerstin.klaser.16@ucl.ac.uk.
Thomas VarsavskyDepartment of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London SE1 7EH, UK.
Pawel MarkiewiczDepartment of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London SE1 7EH, UK.
Tom VercauterenSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London SE1 7EH, UK.
Alexander HammersSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London SE1 7EH, UK; Kings College London & GSTT PET Centre, St. Thomas Hospital, London, UK.
David AtkinsonCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London W1W 7TS, UK.
Kris ThielemansInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London NW1 2BU, UK.
Brian HuttonInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London NW1 2BU, UK.
M J CardosoSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London SE1 7EH, UK.
Sébastien OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London SE1 7EH, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/N013042/1Wellcome Trust 203148Wellcome Trust WT203148/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust WT213038/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment of the quality of synthesised/pseudo Computed Tomography (pCT) images is commonly measured by an intensity-wise similarity between the ground truth CT and the pCT. However, when using the pCT as an attenuation map (μ-map) for PET reconstruction in Positron Emission Tomography Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PET/MRI) minimising the error between pCT and CT neglects the main objective of predicting a pCT that when used as μ-map reconstructs a pseudo PET (pPET) which is as similar as possible to the gold standard CT-derived PET reconstruction. This observation motivated us to propose a novel multi-hypothesis deep learning framework explicitly aimed at PET reconstruction application. A convolutional neural network (CNN) synthesises pCTs by minimising a combination of the pixel-wise error between pCT and CT and a novel metric-loss that itself is defined by a CNN and aims to minimise consequent PET residuals. Training is performed on a database of twenty 3D MR/CT/PET brain image pairs. Quantitative results on a fully independent dataset of twenty-three 3D MR/CT/PET image pairs show that the network is able to synthesise more accurate pCTs. The Mean Absolute Error on the pCT (110.98 HU ± 19.22 HU) compared to a baseline CNN (172.12 HU ± 19.61 HU) and a multi-atlas propagation approach (153.40 HU ± 18.68 HU), and subsequently lead to a significant improvement in the PET reconstruction error (4.74% ± 1.52% compared to baseline 13.72% ± 2.48% and multi-atlas propagation 6.68% ± 2.06%).

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedImitative BehaviorHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedConvolutional neural networkDeep learningImitation learningMR to CT synthesis

Identifiers

PMID33951598
PMCPMC7611431

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.