What approach to brain partial volume correction is best for PET/MRI?

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHutton, BFen_AU
dc.contributor.authorThomas, BAen_AU
dc.contributor.authorErlandsson, Ken_AU
dc.contributor.authorBousse, Aen_AU
dc.contributor.authorReilhac-Laborde, Aen_AU
dc.contributor.authorKazantsev, Den_AU
dc.contributor.authorPedemonte, Sen_AU
dc.contributor.authorVunckx, Ken_AU
dc.contributor.authorArridge, SRen_AU
dc.contributor.authorOurselin, Sen_AU
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-30T00:26:34Zen_AU
dc.date.available2020-03-30T00:26:34Zen_AU
dc.date.issued2013-02-21en_AU
dc.date.statistics2020-03-20en_AU
dc.description.abstractMany partial volume correction approaches make use of anatomical information, readily available in PET/MRI systems but it is not clear what approach is best. Seven novel approaches to partial volume correction were evaluated, including several post-reconstruction methods and several reconstruction methods that incorporate anatomical information. These were compared with an MRI-independent approach (reblurred van Cittert ) and uncorrected data. Monte Carlo PET data were generated for activity distributions representing both 18F FDG and amyloid tracer uptake. Post-reconstruction methods provided the best recovery with ideal segmentation but were particularly sensitive to mis-registration. Alternative approaches performed better in maintaining lesion contrast (unseen in MRI) with good noise control. These were also relatively insensitive to mis-registration errors. The choice of method will depend on the specific application and reliability of segmentation and registration algorithms. (c) 2012 Elsevier Science B.V.en_AU
dc.identifier.citationHutton, B. F., Thomas, B. A., Erlandsson, K., Bousse, A., Reilhac-Laborde, A., Kazantsev, D., Vundkx, K., Arridge, S. R., & Ourselin, S. (2013). What approach to brain partial volume correction is best for PET/MRI? Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 702, 29-33. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2012.07.059en_AU
dc.identifier.govdoc8772en_AU
dc.identifier.issn0168-9002en_AU
dc.identifier.journaltitleNuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipmenten_AU
dc.identifier.pagination29-33en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2012.07.059en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://apo.ansto.gov.au/dspace/handle/10238/9304en_AU
dc.identifier.volume702en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.en_AU
dc.subjectBrainen_AU
dc.subjectPositron computed tomographyen_AU
dc.subjectMagnetic resonanceen_AU
dc.subjectMonte Carlo Methoden_AU
dc.subjectNMR imagingen_AU
dc.subjectDiagnostic techniquesen_AU
dc.titleWhat approach to brain partial volume correction is best for PET/MRI?en_AU
dc.typeJournal Articleen_AU
Files
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles