Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36752847›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2023

Comparison of deep learning-based denoising methods in cardiac SPECT.

Antti Sohlberg, Tuija Kangasmaa, Chris Constable, Antti Tikkakoski

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Accelerating imaging: deep learning for enhancedJapanese journal of radiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. AI in SPECT Imaging: Opportunities and Challenges.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Impact of the Reference Multiple-Time-Point Dosimetry Protocol on the Validity of Single-Time-Point Dosimetry for [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Antti SohlbergDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Päijät-Häme Central Hospital, Lahti, Finland. antti.sohlberg@phhyky.fi.
Tuija KangasmaaDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland.
Chris ConstableHERMES Medical Solutions, Stockholm, Sweden.
Antti TikkakoskiClinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMyocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) images often suffer from artefacts caused by low-count statistics. Poor-quality images can lead to misinterpretations of perfusion defects. Deep learning (DL)-based methods have been proposed to overcome the noise artefacts. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences among several DL denoising models.

methodsConvolution neural network (CNN), residual neural network (RES), UNET and conditional generative adversarial neural network (cGAN) were generated and trained using ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstructed MPS studies acquired with full, half, three-eighths and quarter acquisition time. All DL methods were compared against each other and also against images without DL-based denoising. Comparisons were made using half and quarter time acquisition data. The methods were evaluated in terms of noise level (coefficient of variation of counts, CoV), structural similarity index measure (SSIM) in the myocardium of normal patients and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of realistic artificial perfusion defects inserted into normal MPS scans. Total perfusion deficit scores were used as observer rating for the presence of a perfusion defect.

resultsAll the DL denoising methods tested provided statistically significantly lower noise level than OSEM without DL-based denoising with the same acquisition time. CoV of the myocardium counts with the different DL noising methods was on average 7% (CNN), 8% (RES), 7% (UNET) and 14% (cGAN) lower than with OSEM. All DL methods also outperformed full time OSEM without DL-based denoising in terms of noise level with both half and quarter acquisition time, but this difference was not statistically significant. cGAN had the lowest CoV of the DL methods at all noise levels. Image quality and polar map uniformity of DL-denoised images were also better than reduced acquisition time OSEM's. SSIM of the reduced acquisition time OSEM was overall higher than with the DL methods. The defect detection performance of full time OSEM measured as area under the ROC curve (AUC) was on average 0.97. Half time OSEM, CNN, RES and UNET provided equal or nearly equal AUC. However, with quarter time data CNN, RES and UNET had an average AUC of 0.93, which was lower than full time OSEM's AUC, but equal to quarter acquisition time OSEM. cGAN did not achieve the defect detection performance of the other DL methods. Its average AUC with half time data was 0.94 and 0.91 with quarter time data.

conclusionsDL-based denoising effectively improved noise level with slightly lower perfusion defect detection performance than full time reconstruction. cGAN achieved the lowest noise level, but at the same time the poorest defect detection performance among the studied DL methods.

Indexed as

Cardiac SPECTDeep learningDenoising

Identifiers

PMID36752847
PMCPMC9908801

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.