We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
The performance of machine learning approaches for attenuation correction of PET in neuroimaging: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Neuroradiology. Journal de Neuroradiologie 2023 Februrary 4
PURPOSE: This systematic review provides a consensus on the clinical feasibility of machine learning (ML) methods for brain PET attenuation correction (AC). Performance of ML-AC were compared to clinical standards.
METHODS: Two hundred and eighty studies were identified through electronic searches of brain PET studies published between January 1, 2008, and August 1, 2022. Reported outcomes for image quality, tissue classification performance, regional and global bias were extracted to evaluate ML-AC performance. Methodological quality of included studies and the quality of evidence of analysed outcomes were assessed using QUADAS-2 and GRADE, respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 19 studies (2371 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the global bias of ML methods was 0.76 ± 1.2%. For image quality, the relative mean square error (RMSE) was 0.20 ± 0.4 while for tissues classification, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for bone/soft tissue/air were 0.82 ± 0.1 / 0.95 ± 0.03 / 0.85 ± 0.14.
CONCLUSIONS: In general, ML-AC performance is within acceptable limits for clinical PET imaging. The sparse information on ML-AC robustness and its limited qualitative clinical evaluation may hinder clinical implementation in neuroimaging, especially for PET/MRI or emerging brain PET systems where standard AC approaches are not readily available.
METHODS: Two hundred and eighty studies were identified through electronic searches of brain PET studies published between January 1, 2008, and August 1, 2022. Reported outcomes for image quality, tissue classification performance, regional and global bias were extracted to evaluate ML-AC performance. Methodological quality of included studies and the quality of evidence of analysed outcomes were assessed using QUADAS-2 and GRADE, respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 19 studies (2371 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the global bias of ML methods was 0.76 ± 1.2%. For image quality, the relative mean square error (RMSE) was 0.20 ± 0.4 while for tissues classification, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for bone/soft tissue/air were 0.82 ± 0.1 / 0.95 ± 0.03 / 0.85 ± 0.14.
CONCLUSIONS: In general, ML-AC performance is within acceptable limits for clinical PET imaging. The sparse information on ML-AC robustness and its limited qualitative clinical evaluation may hinder clinical implementation in neuroimaging, especially for PET/MRI or emerging brain PET systems where standard AC approaches are not readily available.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app