Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35943622›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2022

Convolutional neural networks for automatic image quality control and EARL compliance of PET images.

Elisabeth Pfaehler, Daniela Euba, Andreas Rinscheid, Otto S Hoekstra, Josee Zijlstra, Joyce van Sluis, Adrienne H Brouwers, Constantin Lapa, Ronald Boellaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Sensitivity of an AI method for [EJNMMI research · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Elisabeth PfaehlerNuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany. Elisabeth.pfaehler@uk-augsburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6160-3011
Daniela EubaNuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Andreas RinscheidMedical Physics and Radiation Protection, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Otto S HoekstraDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Josee ZijlstraDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joyce van SluisDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Adrienne H BrouwersDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Constantin LapaNuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Ronald BoellaardDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning studies require a large number of images often obtained on different PET scanners. When merging these images, the use of harmonized images following EARL-standards is essential. However, when including retrospective images, EARL accreditation might not have been in place. The aim of this study was to develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) that can identify retrospectively if an image is EARL compliant and if it is meeting older or newer EARL-standards. MATERIALS AND

methods96 PET images acquired on three PET/CT systems were included in the study. All images were reconstructed with the locally clinically preferred, EARL1, and EARL2 compliant reconstruction protocols. After image pre-processing, one CNN was trained to separate clinical and EARL compliant reconstructions. A second CNN was optimized to identify EARL1 and EARL2 compliant images. The accuracy of both CNNs was assessed using fivefold cross-validation. The CNNs were validated on 24 images acquired on a PET scanner not included in the training data. To assess the impact of image noise on the CNN decision, the 24 images were reconstructed with different scan durations.

resultsIn the cross-validation, the first CNN classified all images correctly. When identifying EARL1 and EARL2 compliant images, the second CNN identified 100% EARL1 compliant and 85% EARL2 compliant images correctly. The accuracy in the independent dataset was comparable to the cross-validation accuracy. The scan duration had almost no impact on the results.

conclusionThe two CNNs trained in this study can be used to retrospectively include images in a multi-center setting by, e.g., adding additional smoothing. This method is especially important for machine learning studies where the harmonization of images from different PET systems is essential.

Indexed as

Convolutional neural networkImage qualityPET

Identifiers

PMID35943622
PMCPMC9363539

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.