ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2024
Comparison of the Accuracy of a Deep Learning Method for Lesion Detection in PET/CT and PET/MRI Images.
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT for Staging Suspected/Confirmed Lung Cancer: Results on the Surgical Cohort Within a Monocentric Prospective Trial.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
purposeDevelop a universal lesion recognition algorithm for PET/CT and PET/MRI, validate it, and explore factors affecting performance. PROCEDURES: The 2022 AutoPet Challenge's 1014 PET/CT dataset was used to train the lesion detection model based on 2D and 3D fractional-residual (F-Res) models. To extend this to PET/MRI, a network for converting MR images to synthetic CT (sCT) was developed, using 41 sets of whole-body MR and corresponding CT data. 38 patients' PET/CT and PET/MRI data were used to verify the universal lesion recognition algorithm. Image quality was assessed using signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Total lesion glycolysis (TLG), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and lesion count were calculated from the resultant lesion masks. Experienced physicians reviewed and corrected the model's outputs, establishing the ground truth. The performance of the lesion detection deep-learning model on different PET images was assessed by detection accuracy, precision, recall, and dice coefficients. Data with a detection accuracy score (DAS) less than 1 was used for analysis of outliers.
resultsCompared to PET/CT, PET/MRI scans had a significantly longer delay time (135 ± 45 min vs 61 ± 12 min) and lower SNR (6.17 ± 1.11 vs 9.27 ± 2.77). However, CNR values were similar (7.37 ± 5.40 vs 5.86 ± 6.69). PET/MRI detected more lesions (with a mean difference of -3.184). TLG and MTV showed no significant differences between PET/CT and PET/MRI (TLG: 119.18 ± 203.15 vs 123.57 ± 151.58, p = 0.41; MTV: 36.58 ± 57.00 vs 39.16 ± 48.34, p = 0.33). A total of 12 PET/CT and 14 PET/MRI datasets were included in the analysis of outliers. Outlier analysis revealed PET/CT anomalies in intestines, ureters, and muscles, while PET/MRI anomalies were in intestines, testicles, and low tracer uptake regions, with false positives in ureters (PET/CT) and intestines/testicles (PET/MRI).
conclusionThe deep learning lesion detection model performs well with both PET/CT and PET/MRI. SNR, CNR and reconstruction parameters minimally impact recognition accuracy, but delay time post-injection is significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39141195What 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.