ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Development of an anomaly detection system for Gibbs artifact identification in amyloid PET imaging.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The PET Imaging Site Qualification Program for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) in Japan includes visual evaluation of the cylinder phantom. This visual evaluation requires observation of the entire image of the phantom and confirmation of the absence of apparent artifacts. Because the evaluation is visually performed, inter-observer differences might exist among evaluators for difficult cases. Therefore, the workload of the staff who perform approval tasks must be reduced, and objective evaluation methods are needed. Thus, we attempted to develop an artificial-intelligence-based objective method for anomaly detection. Three artificial intelligence methods for anomaly detection were developed, and their accuracy was evaluated using AutoEncoder, AnoGAN, and a method combining feature extraction using AlexNet and a one-class support vector machine. In total, 10,207 normal images from 128 facilities and 594 abnormal images from eight facilities, all of which were submitted as part of application for amyloid PET certification, were used. Group five-fold cross-validation was employed for artificial intelligence training and evaluation. In addition, the performance of each artificial intelligence method was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The areas under the curve for anomaly detection using AutoEncoder, AnoGAN, and the method combining feature extraction using AlexNet and a one-class support vector machine were 0.80 ± 0.04, 0.77 ± 0.03, and 0.99 ± 0.01, respectively. Artificial intelligence effectively distinguished between normal and abnormal images with high accuracy. In the future, its practical implementation is anticipated to reduce the workload in the approval work for the Japanese site qualification program for amyloid PET.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40560355What 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.