By Topic

Comparison of statistical reconstructions with isotropic and anisotropic resolution in PET

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

1 Author(s)
Jinyi Qi ; Dept. of Biomed. Eng., Univ. of California, Davis, CA, USA

Statistical reconstruction methods based on the penalized maximum likelihood (or maximum a posteriori) principle have gained increasing attention in emission tomography. Fessler and Rogers have shown in 1996 that penalized maximum likelihood reconstruction with a conventional quadratic penalty results in anisotropic point spread functions (PSFs). Since then several approaches have been developed to design modified penalty functions to achieve isotropic PSFs. While an image with an isotropic PSF may be useful in some situations, its performance on clinical detection and quantitation tasks is unknown. In this paper we compare the task performances between reconstructions with isotropic and anisotropic PSFs using computer simulations. The performance on lesion detection is measured by a channelized Hotelling observer, and the performance on region of interest quantitation is evaluated by the bias and variance tradeoff. The results show that reconstructions with a conventional quadratic penalty function (anisotropic resolution) outperform post-smoothed maximum likelihood reconstructions (isotropic resolution) for both tasks, which indicates that isotropic resolution may not be suitable for lesion detection and quantitation.

Published in:

Nuclear Science, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:53 ,  Issue: 1 )