{"title":"利用动态 18F-FDG PET/MRI 研究，采用去噪和解卷积方法，利用 Legendre 多项式，定量评估健康患者的肾脏分裂功能和平均转运时间。","authors":"Michel Destine, Alain Seret","doi":"10.1186/s41824-024-00221-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our objective was to assess a deconvolution and denoising technique based on Legendre polynomials compared to matrix deconvolution on dynamic <sup>18</sup>F-FDG renography of healthy patients.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study was carried out and compared to the data of 24 healthy patients from a published study who underwent examinations with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG3 planar scintigraphy and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI. Due to corruption issues in some data used in the published article, post-publication measurements were provided. We have been warned that post-publication data were treated differently. The smoothing method switched from Bezier to Savitzky-Golay and the deconvolution from matrix-based (with Tikhonov Regularization) to Richardson-Lucy. A comparison of the split function and mean transit times of the published and post-publication data against our method based on Legendre polynomials was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For split function, we only observed a good agreement between the processing methods for the <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> and the post-published data. No correlation was found between the split functions obtained on the <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> and the <sup>18</sup>F-FDG, contrary to the published study. However, all calculated split function values for <sup>18</sup>F-FDG and <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> were within the established normal range. For the mean transit time, the correlation was moderate with published data and very good with the post-publication measurements for both <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG. Bias of the Bland-Altman analysis of the mean transit times for <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> versus <sup>18</sup>F-FDG was 1.1 min (SD 1.7 min) for the published data, - 0.11 min (SD 1.9 min) for the post-publication results and .05 min (SD 1.9 min) for our method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The processing methods used in the original publication and in the post-publication work were quite complex and required adaptation of the fitting parameters for each individual and each type of examination. Our method did not require any specific adjustment; the same unmodified and fully automated algorithm was successfully applied to all data.</p>","PeriodicalId":519909,"journal":{"name":"EJNMMI reports","volume":"8 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473472/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative assessment of kidney split function and mean transit time in healthy patients using dynamic <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI studies with denoising and deconvolution methods making use of Legendre polynomials.\",\"authors\":\"Michel Destine, Alain Seret\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41824-024-00221-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our objective was to assess a deconvolution and denoising technique based on Legendre polynomials compared to matrix deconvolution on dynamic <sup>18</sup>F-FDG renography of healthy patients.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study was carried out and compared to the data of 24 healthy patients from a published study who underwent examinations with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG3 planar scintigraphy and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI. Due to corruption issues in some data used in the published article, post-publication measurements were provided. We have been warned that post-publication data were treated differently. The smoothing method switched from Bezier to Savitzky-Golay and the deconvolution from matrix-based (with Tikhonov Regularization) to Richardson-Lucy. A comparison of the split function and mean transit times of the published and post-publication data against our method based on Legendre polynomials was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For split function, we only observed a good agreement between the processing methods for the <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> and the post-published data. No correlation was found between the split functions obtained on the <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> and the <sup>18</sup>F-FDG, contrary to the published study. However, all calculated split function values for <sup>18</sup>F-FDG and <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> were within the established normal range. For the mean transit time, the correlation was moderate with published data and very good with the post-publication measurements for both <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG. Bias of the Bland-Altman analysis of the mean transit times for <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MAG<sub>3</sub> versus <sup>18</sup>F-FDG was 1.1 min (SD 1.7 min) for the published data, - 0.11 min (SD 1.9 min) for the post-publication results and .05 min (SD 1.9 min) for our method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The processing methods used in the original publication and in the post-publication work were quite complex and required adaptation of the fitting parameters for each individual and each type of examination. Our method did not require any specific adjustment; the same unmodified and fully automated algorithm was successfully applied to all data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EJNMMI reports\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473472/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EJNMMI reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41824-024-00221-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJNMMI reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41824-024-00221-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Quantitative assessment of kidney split function and mean transit time in healthy patients using dynamic 18F-FDG PET/MRI studies with denoising and deconvolution methods making use of Legendre polynomials.
Purpose: Our objective was to assess a deconvolution and denoising technique based on Legendre polynomials compared to matrix deconvolution on dynamic 18F-FDG renography of healthy patients.
Method: The study was carried out and compared to the data of 24 healthy patients from a published study who underwent examinations with 99mTc-MAG3 planar scintigraphy and 18F-FDG PET/MRI. Due to corruption issues in some data used in the published article, post-publication measurements were provided. We have been warned that post-publication data were treated differently. The smoothing method switched from Bezier to Savitzky-Golay and the deconvolution from matrix-based (with Tikhonov Regularization) to Richardson-Lucy. A comparison of the split function and mean transit times of the published and post-publication data against our method based on Legendre polynomials was performed.
Results: For split function, we only observed a good agreement between the processing methods for the 99mTc-MAG3 and the post-published data. No correlation was found between the split functions obtained on the 99mTc-MAG3 and the 18F-FDG, contrary to the published study. However, all calculated split function values for 18F-FDG and 99mTc-MAG3 were within the established normal range. For the mean transit time, the correlation was moderate with published data and very good with the post-publication measurements for both 99mTc-MAG3 and 18F-FDG. Bias of the Bland-Altman analysis of the mean transit times for 99mTc-MAG3 versus 18F-FDG was 1.1 min (SD 1.7 min) for the published data, - 0.11 min (SD 1.9 min) for the post-publication results and .05 min (SD 1.9 min) for our method.
Conclusions: The processing methods used in the original publication and in the post-publication work were quite complex and required adaptation of the fitting parameters for each individual and each type of examination. Our method did not require any specific adjustment; the same unmodified and fully automated algorithm was successfully applied to all data.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
