Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40425962›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Comparison of Automatic Segmentation and Preprocessing Approaches for Dynamic Total-Body 3D Pet Images with Different Pet Tracers.

Maria K Jaakkola, Marcela Xiomara Rivera Pineda, Rafael Díaz, Maria Rantala, Anna Jalo, Henri Kärpijoki, Teemu Saari, Teemu Maaniitty, Thomas Keller, Heli Louhi and 13 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

23 authors.

Maria K JaakkolaTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. maria.jaakkola@utu.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7199-0062
Marcela Xiomara Rivera PinedaBiomedical Imaging, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland.
Rafael DíazBiomedical Imaging, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland.
Maria RantalaTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Anna JaloMediCity Research Laboratory, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Henri KärpijokiTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Teemu SaariTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Teemu MaaniittyTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Thomas KellerRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry Laboratory, Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Heli LouhiTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Saara WahlroosRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry Laboratory, Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Merja Haaparanta-SolinMediCity Research Laboratory, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Olof SolinRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry Laboratory, Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Jaakko HentiläTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Jatta S HelinMediCity Research Laboratory, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Tuuli A NissinenMediCity Research Laboratory, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Olli EskolaTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Johan RajanderAccelerator Laboratory, Turku PET Centre, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland.
Juhani KnuutiTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Kirsi A VirtanenTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Jarna C HannukainenTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Francisco López-PicónTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Riku KlénTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. riku.klen@utu.fi.

Funding

Academy of Finland 317332Academy of Finland 343410donation funds of Faculty of Medicine at University of Turku NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Segmentation is a routine step in PET image analysis, and few automatic tools have been developed for it. However, excluding supervised methods with their own limitations, they are typically designed for older, small images and the implementations are no longer publicly available. Here, we test if different commonly used building blocks of the automatic methods work with large modern total-body PET images. Dynamic total-body images from five different datasets are used for evaluation purposes, and the tested algorithms cover wide range of different preprocessing approaches and unsupervised segmentation methods. The validation is done by comparing the obtained segments to manually drawn ones using Jaccard index, Dice score, precision, and recall as measures of match. Out of the 17 considered segmentation methods, only 6 were computationally usable and provided enough segments for the needs of this study. Among these six feasible methods, hierarchical clustering and HDBSCAN had systematically the lowest Jaccard indices with the manual segmentations, whereas both GMM and k-means had median Jaccards of 0.58 over different organ segments and data sets. GMM outperformed k-means in human data, but with rat images, the two methods had equally good performance k-means having slightly stronger precision and GMM recall. We conclude that most of the commonly used unsupervised segmentation methods are computationally infeasible with the modern PET images, classical clustering algorithms k-means and especially Gaussian mixture model being the most promising candidates for further method development. Even though preprocessing, particularly denoising, improved the results, small organs remained difficult to segment.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalPositron-Emission TomographyWhole Body ImagingAlgorithmsAnimalsHumansRatsComparisonPETSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID40425962
PMCPMC12920958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.