Literature DB >> 29182151

Using convolutional neural networks to estimate time-of-flight from PET detector waveforms.

Eric Berg1, Simon R Cherry.   

Abstract

Although there have been impressive strides in detector development for time-of-flight positron emission tomography, most detectors still make use of simple signal processing methods to extract the time-of-flight information from the detector signals. In most cases, the timing pick-off for each waveform is computed using leading edge discrimination or constant fraction discrimination, as these were historically easily implemented with analog pulse processing electronics. However, now with the availability of fast waveform digitizers, there is opportunity to make use of more of the timing information contained in the coincident detector waveforms with advanced signal processing techniques. Here we describe the application of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs), a type of machine learning, to estimate time-of-flight directly from the pair of digitized detector waveforms for a coincident event. One of the key features of this approach is the simplicity in obtaining ground-truth-labeled data needed to train the CNN: the true time-of-flight is determined from the difference in path length between the positron emission and each of the coincident detectors, which can be easily controlled experimentally. The experimental setup used here made use of two photomultiplier tube-based scintillation detectors, and a point source, stepped in 5 mm increments over a 15 cm range between the two detectors. The detector waveforms were digitized at 10 GS s-1 using a bench-top oscilloscope. The results shown here demonstrate that CNN-based time-of-flight estimation improves timing resolution by 20% compared to leading edge discrimination (231 ps versus 185 ps), and 23% compared to constant fraction discrimination (242 ps versus 185 ps). By comparing several different CNN architectures, we also showed that CNN depth (number of convolutional and fully connected layers) had the largest impact on timing resolution, while the exact network parameters, such as convolutional filter size and number of feature maps, had only a minor influence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29182151      PMCID: PMC5784837          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa9dc5

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


  18 in total

1.  Potentials of Digitally Sampling Scintillation Pulses in Timing Determination in PET.

Authors:  Qingguo Xie; Chien-Min Kao; Xi Wang; Ning Guo; Caigang Zhu; Henry Frisch; William W Moses; Chin-Tu Chen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2009-10-06       Impact factor: 1.679

2.  LaBr(3):Ce and SiPMs for time-of-flight PET: achieving 100 ps coincidence resolving time.

Authors:  Dennis R Schaart; Stefan Seifert; Ruud Vinke; Herman T van Dam; Peter Dendooven; Herbert Löhner; Freek J Beekman
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results.

Authors:  Joel S Karp; Suleman Surti; Margaret E Daube-Witherspoon; Gerd Muehllehner
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution.

Authors:  Maurizio Conti
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Investigating the temporal resolution limits of scintillation detection from pixellated elements: comparison between experiment and simulation.

Authors:  V Ch Spanoudaki; C S Levin
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  First characterization of a digital SiPM based time-of-flight PET detector with 1 mm spatial resolution.

Authors:  Stefan Seifert; Gerben van der Lei; Herman T van Dam; Dennis R Schaart
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Sub-200 ps CRT in monolithic scintillator PET detectors using digital SiPM arrays and maximum likelihood interaction time estimation.

Authors:  Herman T van Dam; Giacomo Borghi; Stefan Seifert; Dennis R Schaart
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Waveform-Sampling Electronics for a Whole-Body Time-of-Flight PET Scanner.

Authors:  W J Ashmanskas; B C LeGeyt; F M Newcomer; J V Panetta; W A Ryan; R Van Berg; R I Wiener; J S Karp Fellow
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.679

9.  Maximum-Likelihood Methods for Processing Signals From Gamma-Ray Detectors.

Authors:  Harrison H Barrett; William C J Hunter; Brian William Miller; Stephen K Moore; Yichun Chen; Lars R Furenlid
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 1.679

10.  Photo-detectors for time of flight positron emission tomography (ToF-PET).

Authors:  Virginia Ch Spanoudaki; Craig S Levin
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2010-11-18       Impact factor: 3.576

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Innovations in Instrumentation for Positron Emission Tomography.

Authors:  Eric Berg; Simon R Cherry
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 4.446

2.  Artificial intelligence, machine (deep) learning and radio(geno)mics: definitions and nuclear medicine imaging applications.

Authors:  Dimitris Visvikis; Catherine Cheze Le Rest; Vincent Jaouen; Mathieu Hatt
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-07-06       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Improving timing performance of double-ended readout in TOF-PET detectors.

Authors:  L Guo; J Tian; P Chen; S E Derenzo; W-S Choong
Journal:  J Instrum       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 1.415

4.  Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge.

Authors:  Paul Lecoq; Christian Morel; John O Prior; Dimitris Visvikis; Stefan Gundacker; Etiennette Auffray; Peter Križan; Rosana Martinez Turtos; Dominique Thers; Edoardo Charbon; Joao Varela; Christophe de La Taille; Angelo Rivetti; Dominique Breton; Jean-François Pratte; Johan Nuyts; Suleman Surti; Stefaan Vandenberghe; Paul Marsden; Katia Parodi; Jose Maria Benlloch; Mathieu Benoit
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Ultrafast timing enables reconstruction-free positron emission imaging.

Authors:  Sun Il Kwon; Ryosuke Ota; Eric Berg; Fumio Hashimoto; Kyohei Nakajima; Izumi Ogawa; Yoichi Tamagawa; Tomohide Omura; Tomoyuki Hasegawa; Simon R Cherry
Journal:  Nat Photonics       Date:  2021-10-14       Impact factor: 39.728

6.  Dynamic cardiac PET imaging: Technological improvements advancing future cardiac health.

Authors:  Grant T Gullberg; Uttam M Shrestha; Youngho Seo
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 7.  Artificial intelligence in molecular imaging.

Authors:  Edward H Herskovits
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-05

8.  Performance assessment of the 2 γpositronium imaging with the total-body PET scanners.

Authors:  P Moskal; D Kisielewska; R Y Shopa; Z Bura; J Chhokar; C Curceanu; E Czerwiński; M Dadgar; K Dulski; J Gajewski; A Gajos; M Gorgol; R Del Grande; B C Hiesmayr; B Jasińska; K Kacprzak; A Kamińska; Ł Kapłon; H Karimi; G Korcyl; P Kowalski; N Krawczyk; W Krzemień; T Kozik; E Kubicz; P Małczak; M Mohammed; Sz Niedźwiecki; M Pałka; M Pawlik-Niedźwiecka; M Pędziwiatr; L Raczyński; J Raj; A Ruciński; S Sharma; S Shivani; M Silarski; M Skurzok; E Ł Stępień; S Vandenberghe; W Wiślicki; B Zgardzińska
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2020-06-30

Review 9.  Artificial intelligence with deep learning in nuclear medicine and radiology.

Authors:  Milan Decuyper; Jens Maebe; Roel Van Holen; Stefaan Vandenberghe
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2021-12-11

Review 10.  3D Convolutional Neural Network Framework with Deep Learning for Nuclear Medicine.

Authors:  P Manimegalai; R Suresh Kumar; Prajoona Valsalan; R Dhanagopal; P T Vasanth Raj; Jerome Christhudass
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 1.750

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.