Literature DB >> 35622223

Comparison of Three Automated Approaches for Classification of Amyloid-PET Images.

Ying-Hwey Nai1, Yee-Hsin Tay2, Tomotaka Tanaka3,4, Christopher P Chen4,5, Edward G Robins6,7, Anthonin Reilhac6.   

Abstract

Automated amyloid-PET image classification can support clinical assessment and increase diagnostic confidence. Three automated approaches using global cut-points derived from Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis, machine learning (ML) algorithms with regional SUVr values, and deep learning (DL) network with 3D image input were compared under various conditions: number of training data, radiotracers, and cohorts. 276 [11C]PiB and 209 [18F]AV45 PET images from ADNI database and our local cohort were used. Global mean and maximum SUVr cut-points were derived using ROC analysis. 68 ML models were built using regional SUVr values and one DL network was trained with classifications of two visual assessments - manufacturer's recommendations (gray-scale) and with visually guided reference region scaling (rainbow-scale). ML-based classification achieved similarly high accuracy as ROC classification, but had better convergence between training and unseen data, with a smaller number of training data. Naïve Bayes performed the best overall among the 68 ML algorithms. Classification with maximum SUVr cut-points yielded higher accuracy than with mean SUVr cut-points, particularly for cohorts showing more focal uptake. DL networks can support the classification of definite cases accurately but performed poorly for equivocal cases. Rainbow-scale standardized image intensity scaling and improved inter-rater agreement. Gray-scale detects focal accumulation better, thus classifying more amyloid-positive scans. All three approaches generally achieved higher accuracy when trained with rainbow-scale classification. ML yielded similarly high accuracy as ROC, but with better convergence between training and unseen data, and further work may lead to even more accurate ML methods.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alzheimer’s disease; Deep Learning; Equivocal; Machine Learning; Positron emission tomography (PET); Visual interpretation

Year:  2022        PMID: 35622223     DOI: 10.1007/s12021-022-09587-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroinformatics        ISSN: 1539-2791


  11 in total

1.  Visual assessment versus quantitative assessment of 11C-PIB PET and 18F-FDG PET for detection of Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Steven Ng; Victor L Villemagne; Sam Berlangieri; Sze-Ting Lee; Martin Cherk; Sylvia J Gong; Uwe Ackermann; Tim Saunder; Henri Tochon-Danguy; Gareth Jones; Clare Smith; Graeme O'Keefe; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Development of a Dedicated Rebinner with Rigid Motion Correction for the mMR PET/MR Scanner, and Validation in a Large Cohort of 11C-PIB Scans.

Authors:  Anthonin Reilhac; Inés Merida; Zacharie Irace; Mary C Stephenson; Ashley A Weekes; Christopher Chen; John J Totman; David W Townsend; Hadi Fayad; Nicolas Costes
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  Signs and Artifacts in Amyloid PET.

Authors:  Tamara F Lundeen; John P Seibyl; Matthew F Covington; Naghmehossadat Eshghi; Phillip H Kuo
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2018 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 4.  Appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET: a report of the Amyloid Imaging Task Force, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and the Alzheimer's Association.

Authors:  Keith A Johnson; Satoshi Minoshima; Nicolaas I Bohnen; Kevin J Donohoe; Norman L Foster; Peter Herscovitch; Jason H Karlawish; Christopher C Rowe; Maria C Carrillo; Dean M Hartley; Saima Hedrick; Virginia Pappas; William H Thies
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 5.  Brain amyloid imaging.

Authors:  Christopher C Rowe; Victor L Villemagne
Journal:  J Nucl Med Technol       Date:  2013-02-08

6.  Improved quantification of amyloid burden and associated biomarker cut-off points: results from the first amyloid Singaporean cohort with overlapping cerebrovascular disease.

Authors:  Tomotaka Tanaka; Mary C Stephenson; Ying-Hwey Nai; Damian Khor; Francis N Saridin; Saima Hilal; Steven Villaraza; Bibek Gyanwali; Masafumi Ihara; Henri Vrooman; Ashley A Weekes; John J Totman; Edward G Robins; Christopher P Chen; Anthonin Reilhac
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  The clinical feasibility of deep learning-based classification of amyloid PET images in visually equivocal cases.

Authors:  Hye Joo Son; Jungsu S Oh; Minyoung Oh; Soo Jong Kim; Jae-Hong Lee; Jee Hoon Roh; Jae Seung Kim
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Binary classification of ¹⁸F-flutemetamol PET using machine learning: comparison with visual reads and structural MRI.

Authors:  Rik Vandenberghe; Natalie Nelissen; Eric Salmon; Adrian Ivanoiu; Steen Hasselbalch; Allan Andersen; Alex Korner; Lennart Minthon; David J Brooks; Koen Van Laere; Patrick Dupont
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  NiftyNet: a deep-learning platform for medical imaging.

Authors:  Eli Gibson; Wenqi Li; Carole Sudre; Lucas Fidon; Dzhoshkun I Shakir; Guotai Wang; Zach Eaton-Rosen; Robert Gray; Tom Doel; Yipeng Hu; Tom Whyntie; Parashkev Nachev; Marc Modat; Dean C Barratt; Sébastien Ourselin; M Jorge Cardoso; Tom Vercauteren
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Staging and quantification of florbetaben PET images using machine learning: impact of predicted regional cortical tracer uptake and amyloid stage on clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Jun Pyo Kim; Jeonghun Kim; Yeshin Kim; Seung Hwan Moon; Yu Hyun Park; Sole Yoo; Hyemin Jang; Hee Jin Kim; Duk L Na; Sang Won Seo; Joon-Kyung Seong
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-12-28       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.