Literature DB >> 23384998

Scanning linear estimation: improvements over region of interest (ROI) methods.

Meredith K Kupinski1, Eric W Clarkson, Harrison H Barrett.   

Abstract

In tomographic medical imaging, a signal activity is typically estimated by summing voxels from a reconstructed image. We introduce an alternative estimation scheme that operates on the raw projection data and offers a substantial improvement, as measured by the ensemble mean-square error (EMSE), when compared to using voxel values from a maximum-likelihood expectation-maximization (MLEM) reconstruction. The scanning-linear (SL) estimator operates on the raw projection data and is derived as a special case of maximum-likelihood estimation with a series of approximations to make the calculation tractable. The approximated likelihood accounts for background randomness, measurement noise and variability in the parameters to be estimated. When signal size and location are known, the SL estimate of signal activity is unbiased, i.e. the average estimate equals the true value. By contrast, unpredictable bias arising from the null functions of the imaging system affect standard algorithms that operate on reconstructed data. The SL method is demonstrated for two different tasks: (1) simultaneously estimating a signal's size, location and activity; (2) for a fixed signal size and location, estimating activity. Noisy projection data are realistically simulated using measured calibration data from the multi-module multi-resolution small-animal SPECT imaging system. For both tasks, the same set of images is reconstructed using the MLEM algorithm (80 iterations), and the average and maximum values within the region of interest (ROI) are calculated for comparison. This comparison shows dramatic improvements in EMSE for the SL estimates. To show that the bias in ROI estimates affects not only absolute values but also relative differences, such as those used to monitor the response to therapy, the activity estimation task is repeated for three different signal sizes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23384998      PMCID: PMC3613158          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  35 in total

1.  Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value.

Authors:  S C Huang
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.408

2.  Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium.

Authors:  Frederic H Fahey; Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Mehmet Kocak; Harold Thurston; Tina Young Poussaint
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Noise properties of the EM algorithm: II. Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  D W Wilson; B M Tsui; H H Barrett
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Measures of performance in nonlinear estimation tasks: prediction of estimation performance at low signal-to-noise ratio.

Authors:  Stefan P Müller; Craig K Abbey; Frank J Rybicki; Stephen C Moore; Marie Foley Kijewski
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-07-28       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Estimation receiver operating characteristic curve and ideal observers for combined detection/estimation tasks.

Authors:  Eric Clarkson
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.129

6.  Accuracy of quantitative reconstructions in SPECT/CT imaging.

Authors:  S Shcherbinin; A Celler; T Belhocine; R Vanderwerf; A Driedger
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-08-04       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response.

Authors:  Matt Vanderhoek; Scott B Perlman; Robert Jeraj
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  A new fast algorithm for the evaluation of regions of interest and statistical uncertainty in computed tomography.

Authors:  R H Huesman
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Maximum-Likelihood Estimation With a Contracting-Grid Search Algorithm.

Authors:  Jacob Y Hesterman; Luca Caucci; Matthew A Kupinski; Harrison H Barrett; Lars R Furenlid
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 1.679

10.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard; Nanda C Krak; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk.

Authors:  Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Optimization of an Adaptive SPECT System with the Scanning Linear Estimator.

Authors:  Nasrin Ghanbari; Eric Clarkson; Matthew Kupinski; Xin Li
Journal:  IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci       Date:  2017-06-13

3.  Optimal channels for channelized quadratic estimators.

Authors:  Meredith K Kupinski; Eric Clarkson
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 2.129

4.  Singular value decomposition for photon-processing nuclear imaging systems and applications for reconstruction and computing null functions.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Harrison H Barrett; Eric C Frey; Eric Clarkson; Luca Caucci; Matthew A Kupinski
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Comparison of the scanning linear estimator (SLE) and ROI methods for quantitative SPECT imaging.

Authors:  Arda Könik; Meredith Kupinski; P Hendrik Pretorius; Michael A King; Harrison H Barrett
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 3.609

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.