Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37277706›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2023

Deep learning model for automatic image quality assessment in PET.

Haiqiong Zhang, Yu Liu, Yanmei Wang, Yanru Ma, Na Niu, Hongli Jing, Li Huo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2023. 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. Article
  3. Review
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

7 authors.

Haiqiong ZhangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China.
Yu LiuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China.
Yanmei WangGE Healthcare China, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Yanru MaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China.
Na NiuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China.
Hongli JingDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China.
Li HuoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China. huoli@pumch.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA variety of external factors might seriously degrade PET image quality and lead to inconsistent results. The aim of this study is to explore a potential PET image quality assessment (QA) method with deep learning (DL).

methodsA total of 89 PET images were acquired from Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) in China in this study. Ground-truth quality for images was assessed by two senior radiologists and classified into five grades (grade 1, grade 2, grade 3, grade 4, and grade 5). Grade 5 is the best image quality. After preprocessing, the Dense Convolutional Network (DenseNet) was trained to automatically recognize optimal- and poor-quality PET images. Accuracy (ACC), sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), and area under the ROC Curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the diagnostic properties of all models. All indicators of models were assessed using fivefold cross-validation. An image quality QA tool was developed based on our deep learning model. A PET QA report can be automatically obtained after inputting PET images.

resultsFour tasks were generated. Task2 showed worst performance in AUC,ACC, specificity and sensitivity among 4 tasks, and task1 showed unstable performance between training and testing and task3 showed low specificity in both training and testing. Task 4 showed the best diagnostic properties and discriminative performance between poor image quality (grade 1, grade 2) and good quality (grade 3, grade 4, grade 5) images. The automated quality assessment of task 4 showed ACC = 0.77, specificity = 0.71, and sensitivity = 0.83, in the train set; ACC = 0.85, specificity = 0.79, and sensitivity = 0.91, in the test set, respectively. The ROC measuring performance of task 4 had an AUC of 0.86 in the train set and 0.91 in the test set. The image QA tool could output basic information of images, scan and reconstruction parameters, typical instances of PET images, and deep learning score.

conclusionsThis study highlights the feasibility of the assessment of image quality in PET images using a deep learning model, which may assist with accelerating clinical research by reliably assessing image quality.

Indexed as

Deep LearningHumansPositron-Emission TomographyReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveClassificationDeep learningImage qualityPET

Identifiers

PMID37277706
PMCPMC10243071

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.