ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
Unsupervised anomaly detection for longitudinal comparison in whole-body PET/CT images.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study investigates the utility of unsupervised anomaly detection for longitudinal comparison of whole-body
methodsA 3D U-Net was trained exclusively on normal PET/CT images to predict voxel-wise probability distribution parameters of the current PET image conditioned on prior PET, prior CT, and current CT images. During anomaly detection, voxel-wise Z-scores were computed from the predicted parameters and used as an abnormality score map. The performance of the proposed method was compared with that of the subtraction method using slice-wise receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and free-response ROC (FROC) analysis.
resultsThe area under the slice-wise ROC curve (AUC) was 0.881 for the proposed method and 0.757 for the subtraction method. Region-wise subanalysis demonstrated AUCs of 0.925, 0.918, and 0.824 in the neck, chest, and abdominal regions, respectively, all of which exceeded the corresponding AUCs obtained with the subtraction method. In the FROC analysis, sensitivity at 5.0 false positives per case was 0.728 for the proposed method, compared with 0.375 for the subtraction method.
conclusionsThe proposed method effectively suppressed false-positive findings compared with subtraction imaging and successfully highlighted lesions across diverse anatomical regions without requiring lesion-annotated datasets, as opposed to supervised learning approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42183914What 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.