Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39008812›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2024

A deep learning anthropomorphic model observer for a detection task in PET.

Muhan Shao, Darrin W Byrd, Jhimli Mitra, Fatemeh Behnia, Jean H Lee, Amir Iravani, Murat Sadic, Delphine L Chen, Scott D Wollenweber, Craig K Abbey and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Muhan ShaoGE HealthCare Technology and Innovation Center, Niskayuna, New York, USA.
Darrin W ByrdDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jhimli MitraGE HealthCare Technology and Innovation Center, Niskayuna, New York, USA.
Fatemeh BehniaDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jean H LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Amir IravaniDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Murat SadicDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Delphine L ChenDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Scott D WollenweberGE HealthCare, Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA.
Craig K AbbeyDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA.
Paul E KinahanDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sangtae AhnGE HealthCare Technology and Innovation Center, Niskayuna, New York, USA.

Funding

Characterizing, optimizing, and harmonizing cancer detection with PET imagingR01CA258298 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Paul E. Kinahan · 2022 to 2026
$3.3M
National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health R01CA258298NCI NIH HHS R01 CA258298
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLesion detection is one of the most important clinical tasks in positron emission tomography (PET) for oncology. An anthropomorphic model observer (MO) designed to replicate human observers (HOs) in a detection task is an important tool for assessing task-based image quality. The channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) has been the most popular anthropomorphic MO. Recently, deep learning MOs (DLMOs), mostly based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have been investigated for various imaging modalities. However, there have been few studies on DLMOs for PET. PURPOSE: The goal of the study is to investigate whether DLMOs can predict HOs better than conventional MOs such as CHO in a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) detection task using PET images with real anatomical variability.

methodsTwo types of DLMOs were implemented: (1) CNN DLMO, and (2) CNN-SwinT DLMO that combines CNN and Swin Transformer (SwinT) encoders. Lesion-absent PET images were reconstructed from clinical data, and lesion-present images were reconstructed with adding simulated lesion sinogram data. Lesion-present and lesion-absent PET image pairs were labeled by eight HOs consisting of four radiologists and four image scientists in a 2AFC detection task. In total, 2268 pairs of lesion-present and lesion-absent images were used for training, 324 pairs for validation, and 324 pairs for test. CNN DLMO, CNN-SwinT DLMO, CHO with internal noise, and non-prewhitening matched filter (NPWMF) were compared in the same train-test paradigm. For comparison, six quantitative metrics including prediction accuracy, mean squared errors (MSEs) and correlation coefficients, which measure how well a MO predicts HOs, were calculated in a 9-fold cross-validation experiment.

resultsIn terms of the accuracy and MSE metrics, CNN DLMO and CNN-SwinT DLMO showed better performance than CHO and NPWMF, and CNN-SwinT DLMO showed the best performance among the MOs evaluated.

conclusionsDLMO can predict HOs more accurately than conventional MOs such as CHO in PET lesion detection. Combining SwinT and CNN encoders can improve the DLMO prediction performance compared to using CNN only.

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPositron-Emission TomographyHumanschannelized Hotelling observer (CHO)convolutional neural network (CNN)deep learningdetectionmodel observerpositron emission tomography (PET)transformertwo‐alternative forced‐choice (2AFC)

Identifiers

PMID39008812
PMCPMC11725380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.