ArticleMedical physics2024
A deep learning anthropomorphic model observer for a detection task in PET.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consistent performance between medical experts and non-expert readers in forced-choice lesion-detection tasks with PET images.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Noise-aware system generative model (NASGM): positron emission tomography (PET) image simulation framework with observer validation studies.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Systematic double reading for oncological PET/CT scans: insights from a prospective multicentre study in 678 patients.EJNMMI reports · 2025Article
- Characterization of artificial intelligence performance for lesion detection using synthetic lesions in PET imaging.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
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
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.