Comparison of manual and semi-automated delineation of regions of interest for radioligand PET imaging analysis.

Tiffany W Chow, Shinichiro Takeshita, Kie Honjo, Christina E Pataky, Peggy L St Jacques, Maggie L Kusano, Curtis B Caldwell, Joel Ramirez, Sandra Black, Nicolaas P L G Verhoeff
{"title":"Comparison of manual and semi-automated delineation of regions of interest for radioligand PET imaging analysis.","authors":"Tiffany W Chow,&nbsp;Shinichiro Takeshita,&nbsp;Kie Honjo,&nbsp;Christina E Pataky,&nbsp;Peggy L St Jacques,&nbsp;Maggie L Kusano,&nbsp;Curtis B Caldwell,&nbsp;Joel Ramirez,&nbsp;Sandra Black,&nbsp;Nicolaas P L G Verhoeff","doi":"10.1186/1471-2385-7-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As imaging centers produce higher resolution research scans, the number of man-hours required to process regional data has become a major concern. Comparison of automated vs. manual methodology has not been reported for functional imaging. We explored validation of using automation to delineate regions of interest on positron emission tomography (PET) scans. The purpose of this study was to ascertain improvements in image processing time and reproducibility of a semi-automated brain region extraction (SABRE) method over manual delineation of regions of interest (ROIs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared 2 sets of partial volume corrected serotonin 1a receptor binding potentials (BPs) resulting from manual vs. semi-automated methods. BPs were obtained from subjects meeting consensus criteria for frontotemporal degeneration and from age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Two trained raters provided each set of data to conduct comparisons of inter-rater mean image processing time, rank order of BPs for 9 PET scans, intra- and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), repeatability coefficients (RC), percentages of the average parameter value (RM%), and effect sizes of either method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SABRE saved approximately 3 hours of processing time per PET subject over manual delineation (p < .001). Quality of the SABRE BP results was preserved relative to the rank order of subjects by manual methods. Intra- and inter-rater ICC were high (>0.8) for both methods. RC and RM% were lower for the manual method across all ROIs, indicating less intra-rater variance across PET subjects' BPs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SABRE demonstrated significant time savings and no significant difference in reproducibility over manual methods, justifying the use of SABRE in serotonin 1a receptor radioligand PET imaging analysis. This implies that semi-automated ROI delineation is a valid methodology for future PET imaging analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":80684,"journal":{"name":"BMC nuclear medicine","volume":"7 ","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1471-2385-7-2","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC nuclear medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2385-7-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Background: As imaging centers produce higher resolution research scans, the number of man-hours required to process regional data has become a major concern. Comparison of automated vs. manual methodology has not been reported for functional imaging. We explored validation of using automation to delineate regions of interest on positron emission tomography (PET) scans. The purpose of this study was to ascertain improvements in image processing time and reproducibility of a semi-automated brain region extraction (SABRE) method over manual delineation of regions of interest (ROIs).

Methods: We compared 2 sets of partial volume corrected serotonin 1a receptor binding potentials (BPs) resulting from manual vs. semi-automated methods. BPs were obtained from subjects meeting consensus criteria for frontotemporal degeneration and from age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Two trained raters provided each set of data to conduct comparisons of inter-rater mean image processing time, rank order of BPs for 9 PET scans, intra- and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), repeatability coefficients (RC), percentages of the average parameter value (RM%), and effect sizes of either method.

Results: SABRE saved approximately 3 hours of processing time per PET subject over manual delineation (p < .001). Quality of the SABRE BP results was preserved relative to the rank order of subjects by manual methods. Intra- and inter-rater ICC were high (>0.8) for both methods. RC and RM% were lower for the manual method across all ROIs, indicating less intra-rater variance across PET subjects' BPs.

Conclusion: SABRE demonstrated significant time savings and no significant difference in reproducibility over manual methods, justifying the use of SABRE in serotonin 1a receptor radioligand PET imaging analysis. This implies that semi-automated ROI delineation is a valid methodology for future PET imaging analysis.

Abstract Image

放射配体PET成像分析中感兴趣区域的手动和半自动圈定的比较。
背景:随着成像中心产生更高分辨率的研究扫描,处理区域数据所需的工时数量已成为一个主要问题。功能成像的自动方法与手动方法的比较尚未见报道。我们探索了使用自动化来描绘正电子发射断层扫描(PET)感兴趣的区域的验证。本研究的目的是确定半自动化脑区域提取(SABRE)方法在图像处理时间和再现性方面的改进,而不是手动描绘感兴趣区域(roi)。方法:我们比较了两组部分体积校正血清素1a受体结合电位(bp),分别由手动和半自动方法得到。bp来自符合额颞叶变性共识标准的受试者以及年龄和性别匹配的健康对照。每组数据由两名训练有素的评分者提供,以比较两种方法的评分者间平均图像处理时间、9次PET扫描bp的等级顺序、评分者间和评分者间类内相关系数(ICC)、可重复性系数(RC)、平均参数值的百分比(RM%)和效应大小。结果:与人工圈定相比,SABRE为每位PET受试者节省了大约3小时的处理时间(p < 0.001)。通过手工方法,SABRE BP结果的质量相对于受试者的等级顺序保持不变。两种方法的组内和组间ICC均较高(>0.8)。在所有roi中,手动方法的RC和RM%较低,表明PET受试者bp之间的评分内方差较小。结论:与手工方法相比,SABRE显着节省时间且重复性无显着差异,证明了在5 -羟色胺1a受体放射配体PET成像分析中使用SABRE是合理的。这意味着半自动ROI描绘是未来PET成像分析的有效方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信