ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering
No-gold-standard evaluation of quantitative imaging methods in the presence of correlated noise.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- On Hallucinations in Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content for Nuclear Medicine Imaging (the DREAM Report).Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Review
- Comparing evaluation of quantitative imaging methods using reference standards versus regression‑without‑truth‑based technique.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026Article
- Extending Regression Without Truth to Integrate Ground-Truth Measurements for Evaluating Quantitative Imaging Methods with Patient Data.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026Article
- Need for Objective Task-Based Evaluation of Image Segmentation Algorithms for Quantitative PET: A Study with ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235 Multicenter Clinical Trial Data.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024Article
- How accurately can quantitative imaging methods be ranked without ground truth: An upper bound on no-gold-standard evaluation.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024Article
- Need for objective task-based evaluation of AI-based segmentation methods for quantitative PET.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2023Article
- A tissue-fraction estimation-based segmentation method for quantitative dopamine transporter SPECT.Medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective evaluation of quantitative imaging (QI) methods with patient data is highly desirable, but is hindered by the lack or unreliability of an available gold standard. To address this issue, techniques that can evaluate QI methods without access to a gold standard are being actively developed. These techniques assume that the true and measured values are linearly related by a slope, bias, and Gaussian-distributed noise term, where the noise between measurements made by different methods is independent of each other. However, this noise arises in the process of measuring the same quantitative value, and thus can be correlated. To address this limitation, we propose a no-gold-standard evaluation (NGSE) technique that models this correlated noise by a multi-variate Gaussian distribution parameterized by a covariance matrix. We derive a maximum-likelihood-based approach to estimate the parameters that describe the relationship between the true and measured values, without any knowledge of the true values. We then use the estimated slopes and diagonal elements of the covariance matrix to compute the noise-to-slope ratio (NSR) to rank the QI methods on the basis of precision. The proposed NGSE technique was evaluated with multiple numerical experiments. Our results showed that the technique reliably estimated the NSR values and yielded accurate rankings of the considered methods for 83% of 160 trials. In particular, the technique correctly identified the most precise method for ∼ 97% of the trials. Overall, this study demonstrates the efficacy of the NGSE technique to accurately rank different QI methods when correlated noise is present, and without access to any knowledge of the ground truth. The results motivate further validation of this technique with realistic simulation studies and patient data.
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.