Reducing between scanner differences in multi-center PET studies
Open accessAbstract
This work is part of the multi-center Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), a large multi-site study of dementia, including patients having mild cognitive impairment (MCI), probable Alzheimer's disease (AD), as well as healthy elderly controls. A major portion of ADNI involves the use of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) with positron emission tomography (PET). The objective of this paper is reduction of inter-scanner differences in the FDG-PET scans obtained from the 50 participating PET centers having fifteen different scanner models. In spite of a standardized imaging protocol, systematic inter-scanner variability in PET images from various sites is observed primarily due to differences in scanner resolution, reconstruction techniques, and different implementations of scatter and attenuation corrections. Two correction steps were developed by comparison of 3-D Hoffman brain phantom scans with the ‘gold standard’ digital 3-D Hoffman brain phantom: i) high frequency correction; where a smoothing kernel for each scanner model was estimated to smooth all images to a common resolution and ii) low frequency correction; where smooth affine correction factors were obtained to reduce the attenuation and scatter correction errors. For the phantom data, the high frequency correction reduced the variability by 20%-50% and the low frequency correction further reduced the differences by another 20%-25%. Correction factors obtained from phantom studies were applied to 95 scans from normal control subjects obtained from the participating sites. The high frequency correction reduced differences similar to the phantom studies. However, the low frequency correction did not further reduce differences; hence further refinement of the procedure is necessary.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
PET images were smoothed to achieve a common spatial resolution of 8mm to minimize inter-scanner differences.
“PET images were smoothed to achieve a common spatial resolution of 8mm to minimize inter-scanner differences 44 .”
From OASIS-3: Longitudinal Neuroimaging, Clinical, and Cognitive Dataset for Normal Aging and Alzheimer Disease (2019) · cites this paper as [44]
Differences in spatial resolution across PET scanners were accounted for by applying scanner specific spatial filters to achieve a common resolution (8 mm).
“Differences in spatial resolution across PET scanners were accounted for by applying scanner specific spatial filters to achieve a common resolution (8 mm)29.”
From Spatial patterns of neuroimaging biomarker change in individuals from families with autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease: a longitudinal study (2018) · cites this paper as [29]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 6 · Cited by 247
- Authors
- Joshi, A., Koeppe, R. A., & Fessler, J. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Koeppe, Robert A.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-05-15
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 154-159
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4308413
- OpenAlex
- W2140652743
- Semantic Scholar
- eb86202ea33563a4a776abd4ac62cb8adae12c63
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 5.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5u01ag024904-10)
- National Institute on Aging (U01-AG-024904, AG 024904, U19AG010483, U19AG024904)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- inter-scanner variability, FDG-PET, smooth kernels, attenuation correction, scatter correction, Hoffman brain phantom, Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, ADNI, image registration
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Alzheimer Disease, Brain, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Reproducibility of Results, Phantoms, Imaging, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Positron-Emission Tomography
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review