Display options
Cite
Jha AK, Song N, Caffo B, et al. Objective evaluation of reconstruction methods for quantitative SPECT imaging in the absence of ground truth. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2015;9416:94161Kdoi: 10.1117/12.2081286.
Jha, A. K., Song, N., Caffo, B., & Frey, E. C. (2015). Objective evaluation of reconstruction methods for quantitative SPECT imaging in the absence of ground truth. Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 941694161K. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2081286
Jha, Abhinav K, et al. "Objective evaluation of reconstruction methods for quantitative SPECT imaging in the absence of ground truth." Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering vol. 9416 (2015): 94161K. doi: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2081286
Jha AK, Song N, Caffo B, Frey EC. Objective evaluation of reconstruction methods for quantitative SPECT imaging in the absence of ground truth. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2015 Apr 13;9416:94161K. doi: 10.1117/12.2081286. PMID: 26430292; PMCID: PMC4584413.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2015 Apr 13;9416:94161K. doi: 10.1117/12.2081286.

Objective evaluation of reconstruction methods for quantitative SPECT imaging in the absence of ground truth.

Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering

Abhinav K Jha, Na Song, Brian Caffo, Eric C Frey

Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Imaging Physics, Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY, USA.
  3. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

PMID: 26430292 PMCID: PMC4584413 DOI: 10.1117/12.2081286

Abstract

Quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging is emerging as an important tool in clinical studies and biomedical research. There is thus a need for optimization and evaluation of systems and algorithms that are being developed for quantitative SPECT imaging. An appropriate objective method to evaluate these systems is by comparing their performance in the end task that is required in quantitative SPECT imaging, such as estimating the mean activity concentration in a volume of interest (VOI) in a patient image. This objective evaluation can be performed if the true value of the estimated parameter is known, i.e. we have a gold standard. However, very rarely is this gold standard known in human studies. Thus, no-gold-standard techniques to optimize and evaluate systems and algorithms in the absence of gold standard are required. In this work, we developed a no-gold-standard technique to objectively evaluate reconstruction methods used in quantitative SPECT when the parameter to be estimated is the mean activity concentration in a VOI. We studied the performance of the technique with realistic simulated image data generated from an object database consisting of five phantom anatomies with all possible combinations of five sets of organ uptakes, where each anatomy consisted of eight different organ VOIs. Results indicate that the method provided accurate ranking of the reconstruction methods. We also demonstrated the application of consistency checks to test the no-gold-standard output.

Keywords: Evaluating reconstruction methods; No-gold-standard methods; Quantitative SPECT

References

  1. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 May;41 Suppl 1:S17-25 - PubMed
  2. Acad Radiol. 2006 Mar;13(3):329-37 - PubMed
  3. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2010 Feb 27;7627:null - PubMed
  4. J Nucl Med. 2013 Jan;54(1):83-9 - PubMed
  5. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jul;35(7):1330-3 - PubMed
  6. Nucl Med Commun. 2005 Dec;26(12 ):1139-46 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 May;35(5):896-905 - PubMed
  8. Biometrika. 1968 Mar;55(1):1-17 - PubMed
  9. Clin Nucl Med. 2012 Apr;37(4):356-61 - PubMed
  10. Acad Radiol. 2002 Mar;9(3):290-7 - PubMed
  11. J Nucl Med. 2001 May;42(5):772-9 - PubMed
  12. Med Decis Making. 1990 Jan-Mar;10 (1):24-9 - PubMed
  13. J Nucl Med. 2002 Aug;43(8):1101-9 - PubMed
  14. Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jul 7;56(13):N145-52 - PubMed
  15. J Nucl Med. 1996 Aug;37(8):1349-53 - PubMed
  16. Med Phys. 2011 Jun;38(6):3193-204 - PubMed
  17. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002 May;21(5):441-9 - PubMed
  18. Phys Med Biol. 2012 Jul 7;57(13):4425-46 - PubMed
  19. J Nucl Med. 2013 Dec;54(12 ):2182-8 - PubMed
  20. J Nucl Med. 2012 Aug;53(8):1310-25 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support