ArticleResearch square2023
An automatic pipeline for PET/MRI attenuation correction validation in the brain.
Article in Research square, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: PET/MRI quantitative accuracy for neurological applications is challenging due to accuracy of the PET attenuation correction. In this work, we proposed and evaluated an automatic pipeline for assessing the quantitative accuracy of four different MRI = based attenuation correction (PET MRAC) approaches. Methods: The proposed pipeline consists of a synthetic lesion insertion tool and the FreeSurfer neuroimaging analysis framework. The synthetic lesion insertion tool is used to insert simulated spherical, and brain regions of interest (ROI) into the PET projection space and reconstructed with four different PET MRAC techniques, while FreeSurfer is used to generate brain ROIs from T1 weighted MRI image. Using a cohort of 11 patients' brain PET dataset, the quantitative accuracy of four MRAC(s), which are: DIXON AC, DIXONbone AC, UTE AC, and Deep learning trained with DIXON AC, named DL-DIXON AC, were compared to the PET-based CT attenuation correction (PET CTAC). MRAC to CTAC activity bias in spherical lesions and brain ROIs were reconstructed with and without background activity and compared to the original PET images. Results: The proposed pipeline provides accurate and consistent results for inserted spherical lesions and brain ROIs inserted with and without considering the background activity and following the same MRAC to CTAC pattern as the original brain PET images. As expected, the DIXON AC showed the highest bias; the second was for the UTE, then the DIXONBone, and the DL-DIXON with the lowest bias. For simulated ROIs inserted in the background activity, DIXON showed a -4.65% MRAC to CTAC bias, 0.06% for the DIXONbone, -1.70% for the UTE, and - 0.23% for the DL-DIXON. For lesion ROIs inserted without background activity, DIXON showed a -5.21%, -1% for the DIXONbone, -2.55% for the UTE, and - 0.52 for the DL-DIXON. For MRAC to CTAC bias calculated using the same 16 FreeSurfer brain ROIs in the original brain PET reconstructed images, a 6.87% was observed for the DIXON, -1.83% for DIXON bone, -3.01% for the UTE, and - 0.17% for the DL-DIXON. Conclusion: The proposed pipeline provides accurate and consistent results for synthetic spherical lesions and brain ROIs inserted with and without considering the background activity; hence a new attenuation correction approach can be evaluated without using measured PET emission 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.