TY - JOUR
T1 - The Performance of Machine Learning Approaches for Attenuation Correction of PET in Neuroimaging
T2 - A Meta-Analysis
AU - Confidence, Raymond
AU - Jurkiewicz, Michael T
AU - Orunmuyi, Akin
AU - Liu, Linshan
AU - Dada, Michael Oluwaseun
AU - Ladefoged, Claes N
AU - Teuho, Jarmo
AU - Anazodo, Udunna C
N1 - Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
PY - 2023/5
Y1 - 2023/5
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Brain/diagnostic imaging
KW - Humans
KW - Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/methods
KW - Machine Learning
KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods
KW - Multimodal Imaging/methods
KW - Neuroimaging
KW - Positron-Emission Tomography/methods
KW - Synthetic-CT
KW - Brain PET
KW - Systematic review
KW - PET/MRI
KW - Machine learning
KW - Attenuation correction
KW - PET
KW - MRI
KW - Synthetic -CT
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85148700453&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.neurad.2023.01.157
DO - 10.1016/j.neurad.2023.01.157
M3 - Review
C2 - 36738990
SN - 0150-9861
VL - 50
SP - 315
EP - 326
JO - Journal of Neuroradiology
JF - Journal of Neuroradiology
IS - 3
ER -