The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of Image Reconstruction Settings on Texture Features in 18F-FDG PET
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Evaluation of tumor heterogeneity based on texture parameters has recently attracted much interest in the PET imaging community. However, the impact of reconstruction settings on texture parameters is unclear, especially relating to time-of-flight and point-spread function modeling. Their effects on 55 texture features (TFs) and 6 features based on first-order statistics (FOS) were investigated. Standardized uptake value (SUV) measures were also evaluated as peak SUV (SUVpeak), maximum SUV, and mean SUV (SUVmean). METHODS: This study retrospectively recruited 20 patients with lesions in the lung who underwent whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT. The coefficient of variation (COV) of each feature across different reconstructions was calculated. RESULTS: SUVpeak, SUVmean, 18 TFs, and 1 FOS were the most robust (COV ≤ 5%) whereas skewness, cluster shade, and zone percentage were the least robust (COV > 20%) with respect to reconstruction algorithms using default settings. Heterogeneity parameters had different sensitivities to iteration number. Twenty-four parameters including SUVpeak and SUVmean exhibited variation with a COV less than 5%; 28 parameters, including maximum SUV, showed variation with a COV in the range of 5%-10%. In addition, skewness, cluster shade, and zone percentage were the most sensitive to iteration number. In terms of sensitivity to full width at half maximum (FWHM), 15 TFs and 1 FOS had the best performance with a COV less than 5%, whereas SUVpeak and SUVmean had a COV between 5% and 10%. Grid size had the largest impact on image features, which was demonstrated by only 11 features, including SUVpeak and SUVmean, having a COV less than 10%. CONCLUSION: Different image features have different sensitivities to reconstruction settings. Iteration number and FWHM of the gaussian filter have a similar impact on the image features. Grid size has a larger impact on the features than iteration number and FWHM. The features that exhibited large variations such as skewness in FOS, cluster shade, and zone percentage should be used with caution. The entropy in FOS, difference entropy, inverse difference normalized, inverse difference moment normalized, low gray-level run emphasis, high gray-level run emphasis, and low gray-level zone emphasis are the most robust features.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Textural Features for Image Classification
Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K., & Dinstein, I. (1973) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmc.1973.4309314 · Cited by 22,886
Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing
Gerlinger, M., Rowan, A. J., Horswell, S., Larkin, J., Endesfelder, D., Gronroos, E., Martinez, P., Matthews, N., Stewart, A., Tarpey, P., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1113205 · Cited by 7,774 · cited 1×
“Recent studies have shown that tumors often display startling intratumoral heterogeneity, which is often associated with adverse tumor biology (1,2).”
BackgroundImpact of Time-of-Flight on PET Tumor Detection
Kadrmas, D. J., Casey, M. E., Conti, M., Jakoby, B. W., Lois, C., & Townsend, D. W. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.063016 · Cited by 277
Self-citationVariations in Clinical PET/CT Operations: Results of an International Survey of Active PET/CT Users
Beyer, T., Czernin, J., & Freudenberg, L. S. (2011) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.079624 · Cited by 136
Schaefferkoetter, J., Casey, M., Townsend, D., & El Fakhri, G. (2013) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1465 · Cited by 85
Self-citation
Cited by
Zwanenburg, A., Vallières, M., Abdalah, M. A., Aerts, H. J. W. L., Andrearczyk, V., Apte, A., Ashrafinia, S., Bakas, S., Beukinga, R. J., Boellaard, R., et al. (2020) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020191145 · Cited by 4,177
Mayerhoefer, M. E., Materka, A., Langs, G., Häggström, I., Szczypiński, P., Gibbs, P., & Cook, G. (2020) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.222893 · Cited by 1,777
Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection
van Timmeren, J. E., Cester, D., Tanadini-Lang, S., Alkadhi, H., & Baessler, B. (2020) · Insights into Imaging · doi:10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2 · Cited by 1,316
AI applications to medical images: From machine learning to deep learning
Castiglioni, I., Rundo, L., Codari, M., Di Leo, G., Salvatore, C., Interlenghi, M., Gallivanone, F., Cozzi, A., D'Amico, N. C., & Sardanelli, F. (2021) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.02.006 · Cited by 710
Validation of A Method to Compensate Multicenter Effects Affecting CT Radiomics
Orlhac, F., Frouin, F., Nioche, C., Ayache, N., & Buvat, I. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019182023 · Cited by 411
Metadata
- Authors
- Yan, J., Chu-Shern, J. L., Loi, H. Y., Khor, L. K., Sinha, A. K., Quek, S. T., Tham, I. W. K., & Townsend, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2015-07-30
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1667-1673
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- OpenAlex
- W2173608465
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 19.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of Image Reconstruction Settings on Texture Features in 18F-FDG PET. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.115.156927
- The paper
- Yan, J., Chu-Shern, J. L., Loi, H. Y., Khor, L. K., Sinha, A. K., Quek, S. T., Tham, I. W. K., & Townsend, D. (2015). Impact of Image Reconstruction Settings on Texture Features in 18F-FDG PET. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.156927
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.