Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36388622›Full record

ArticleProceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging2022

Ideal-Observer Computation with anthropomorphic phantoms using Markov chain Monte Carlo.

Md Ashequr Rahman, Zitong Yu, Abhinav K Jha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Md Ashequr RahmanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Zitong YuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abhinav K JhaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

A no-gold-standard framework to objectively evaluate quantitative imaging methods with patient dataR01EB031051 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JHA, ABHINAV K · 2021 to 2025
$2.1M
A fully automated PET radiomics frameworkR56EB028287 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JHA, ABHINAV K · 2021 to 2021
$493k
Transmission-less attenuation and scatter compensation in myocardial perfusion SPECT with list-mode dataR21EB024647 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JHA, ABHINAV K · 2018 to 2019
$430k
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB031051NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB024647NIBIB NIH HHS R56 EB028287
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In medical imaging, it is widely recognized that image quality should be objectively evaluated based on performance in clinical tasks. To evaluate performance in signal-detection tasks, the ideal observer (IO) is optimal but also challenging to compute in clinically realistic settings. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)-based strategies have demonstrated the ability to compute the IO using pre-computed projections of an anatomical database. To evaluate image quality in clinically realistic scenarios, the observer performance should be measured for a realistic patient distribution. This implies that the anatomical database should also be derived from a realistic population. In this manuscript, we propose to advance the MCMC-based approach towards achieving these goals. We then use the proposed approach to study the effect of anatomical database size on IO computation for the task of detecting perfusion defects in simulated myocardial perfusion SPECT images. Our preliminary results provide evidence that the size of the anatomical database affects the computation of the IO.

Indexed as

Image-quality evaluationMarkov chain Monte CarloSPECT

Identifiers

PMID36388622
PMCPMC9648621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.