Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41474536›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2025

A deep-learning noise reduction algorithm outperforms the spatial filters previously required for bone SPECT on a high-speed whole-body 360° CZT-camera.

Achraf Bahloul, Franklin Rajadhas, Matthieu Doyen, Yechiel Lamash, Nathaniel Roth, Véronique Roch, Pierre-Yves Marie, Laetitia Imbert

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06782438 (Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm Reducing Noise on Fast Whole-body Bone Tomoscintigraphy Acquisitions Recorded by a 360 Degree Cadmium-Zinc-Tellurid Camera), which is not on this 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.

NCT06782438 completednot on this map

Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm Reducing Noise on Fast Whole-body Bone Tomoscintigraphy Acquisitions Recorded by a 360 Degree Cadmium-Zinc-Tellurid Camera

TypeobservationalSponsorCentral Hospital, Nancy, FranceRan2025 to 2025Enrolled20ConditionsBone ScanArmsartificial intelligence algorithm
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

8 authors.

Achraf BahloulDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Nancyclotep Imaging platform, CHRU-Nancy, Nancy, France. a.bahloul@chru-nancy.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5179-1306
Franklin RajadhasDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Nancyclotep Imaging platform, CHRU-Nancy, Nancy, France.
Matthieu DoyenUniversité de Lorraine, INSERM, IADI, Nancy, France.
Yechiel LamashSpectrum Dynamics Medical, Caesarea, Israel.
Nathaniel RothSpectrum Dynamics Medical, Caesarea, Israel.
Véronique RochDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Nancyclotep Imaging platform, CHRU-Nancy, Nancy, France.
Pierre-Yves MarieDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Nancyclotep Imaging platform, CHRU-Nancy, Nancy, France.
Laetitia ImbertDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Nancyclotep Imaging platform, CHRU-Nancy, Nancy, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpatial filters are required to suppress the statistical noise of SPECT images but with an unavoidable smoothing effect that further decreases the SUV and contrast. This study assesses a deep-learning noise reduction (DLNR) algorithm, previously developed to further reduce bone SPECT recording time on a high-speed whole-body 360° CZT-camera, when used instead of, rather than in addition to, the conventional spatial filters (CSF) recommended for this camera.

resultsThe SUVmax of bone lesions (114 definite arthritis or metastasis lesions) and the resolution recovery coefficients of small and medium phantom spheres, were higher for DLNR than CSF or the combination of CSF plus DLNR (CSF-DLNR) (all p < 0.001), whereas the relative noises were lower for DLNR or CSF-DLNR, as compared with CSF (p < 0.001). Consequently, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was dramatically higher for DLNR, as compared with CSF, and also CSF-DLNR, especially for small- and medium-sized structures. Compared with CSF, DLNR provided an almost two-fold CNR increase for the sphere and lesions in the range of one cm

conclusionWhen used alone, this DLNR algorithm enhances the contrast-to-noise ratio and quantification of bone lesions, especially those of small or medium sizes. It outperforms conventional spatial filters and provides remarkable image quality for routine analysis of bone SPECT from the high-speed whole-body 360° CZT camera. However, further research and validation studies are still necessary before a widespread adoption in clinical practice. KEY POINTS: Question: How does a deep-learning noise reduction algorithm, previously developed to further reduce bone SPECT recording times on a high-speed whole-body 360° CZT-camera, work when used instead of, rather than in addition to, the conventional spatial filters recommended for this camera. Pertinent findings: When used alone, this deep-learning noise reduction algorithm provides a high level of image denoising and better preserves the activities of small- to medium-sized bone structures and lesions than conventional spatial filters do, leading to a dramatic increase in the corresponding contrast-to-noise ratios. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Such a deep-learning noise reduction algorithm could be used not only to reduce SPECT recording time when added to conventional spatial filters, but also to improve image quality and resolution when used alone.

trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT06782438, Registered 27 February 2025, https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?id=NCT06782438 .

Indexed as

ArthritisBone scintigraphyCZT cameraDeep-learningImage noiseMetastasisWhole-body SPECT

Identifiers

PMID41474536
PMCPMC12864558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.