Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38336939›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2024

Verification of image quality improvement of low-count bone scintigraphy using deep learning.

Taisuke Murata, Takuma Hashimoto, Masahisa Onoguchi, Takayuki Shibutani, Takashi Iimori, Koichi Sawada, Tetsuro Umezawa, Yoshitada Masuda, Takashi Uno

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

9 authors.

Taisuke MurataDepartment of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Takuma HashimotoDepartment of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Masahisa OnoguchiDepartment of Quantum Medical Technology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-0942, Japan. onoguchi@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp.
Takayuki ShibutaniDepartment of Quantum Medical Technology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-0942, Japan.
Takashi IimoriDepartment of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Koichi SawadaDepartment of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Tetsuro UmezawaDepartment of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Yoshitada MasudaDepartment of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Takashi UnoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To improve image quality for low-count bone scintigraphy using deep learning and evaluate their clinical applicability. Six hundred patients (training, 500; validation, 50; evaluation, 50) were included in this study. Low-count original images (75%, 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5% counts) were generated from reference images (100% counts) using Poisson resampling. Output (DL-filtered) images were obtained after training with U-Net using reference images as teacher data. Gaussian-filtered images were generated for comparison. Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity (SSIM) to the reference image were calculated to determine image quality. Artificial neural network (ANN) value, bone scan index (BSI), and number of hotspots (Hs) were computed using BONENAVI analysis to assess diagnostic performance. Accuracy of bone metastasis detection and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. PSNR and SSIM for DL-filtered images were highest in all count percentages. BONENAVI analysis values for DL-filtered images did not differ significantly, regardless of the presence or absence of bone metastases. BONENAVI analysis values for original and Gaussian-filtered images differed significantly at ≦25% counts in patients without bone metastases. In patients with bone metastases, BSI and Hs for original and Gaussian-filtered images differed significantly at ≦10% counts, whereas ANN values did not. The accuracy of bone metastasis detection was highest for DL-filtered images in all count percentages; the AUC did not differ significantly. The deep learning method improved image quality and bone metastasis detection accuracy for low-count bone scintigraphy, suggesting its clinical applicability.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsDeep LearningHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedQuality ImprovementRadionuclide ImagingBone scintigraphyDeep learningDiagnostic performanceNoise reductionWhole-body image

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.