Meghana Urs, Aditya Killekar, Valerie Builoff, Mark Lemley, Chih-Chun Wei, Giselle Ramirez, Paul Kavanagh, Christopher Buckley, Piotr J Slomka
{"title":"基于卷积神经网络的18 F-flurpiridaz PET-MPI动态逐帧运动校正。","authors":"Meghana Urs, Aditya Killekar, Valerie Builoff, Mark Lemley, Chih-Chun Wei, Giselle Ramirez, Paul Kavanagh, Christopher Buckley, Piotr J Slomka","doi":"10.1101/2025.06.27.25330436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Precise quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) in <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz PET significantly relies on motion correction (MC). However, the manual frame-by-frame correction leads to significant inter-observer variability, time-consuming, and requires significant experience. We propose a deep learning (DL) framework for automatic MC of <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz PET.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The method employs a 3D ResNet based architecture that takes 3D PET volumes and outputs motion vectors. It was validated using 5-fold cross-validation on data from 32 sites of a Phase III clinical trial (NCT01347710). Manual corrections from two experienced operators served as ground truth, and data augmentation using simulated vectors enhanced training robustness. The study compared the DL approach to both manual and standard non-AI automatic MC methods, assessing agreement and diagnostic accuracy using minimal segmental MBF and MFR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for significant CAD were comparable between DL-MC MBF, manual-MC MBF from Operators (AUC=0.897, 0.892 and 0.889, respectively; p>0.05), standard non-AI automatic MC (AUC=0.877; p>0.05) and significantly higher than No-MC (AUC=0.835; p<0.05). Similar findings were observed with MFR. The 95% confidence limits for agreement with the operator were ±0.49ml/g/min (mean difference = 0.00) for MFR and ±0.24ml/g/min (mean difference = 0.00) for MBF.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DL-MC is significantly faster but diagnostically comparable to manual-MC. The quantitative results obtained with DL-MC for MBF and MFR are in excellent agreement with those manually corrected by experienced operators compared to standard non-AI automatic MC in patients undergoing <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz PET-MPI.</p>","PeriodicalId":94281,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12236872/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dynamic frame-by-frame motion correction for <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz PET-MPI using convolution neural network.\",\"authors\":\"Meghana Urs, Aditya Killekar, Valerie Builoff, Mark Lemley, Chih-Chun Wei, Giselle Ramirez, Paul Kavanagh, Christopher Buckley, Piotr J Slomka\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2025.06.27.25330436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Precise quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) in <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz PET significantly relies on motion correction (MC). However, the manual frame-by-frame correction leads to significant inter-observer variability, time-consuming, and requires significant experience. We propose a deep learning (DL) framework for automatic MC of <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz PET.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The method employs a 3D ResNet based architecture that takes 3D PET volumes and outputs motion vectors. It was validated using 5-fold cross-validation on data from 32 sites of a Phase III clinical trial (NCT01347710). Manual corrections from two experienced operators served as ground truth, and data augmentation using simulated vectors enhanced training robustness. The study compared the DL approach to both manual and standard non-AI automatic MC methods, assessing agreement and diagnostic accuracy using minimal segmental MBF and MFR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for significant CAD were comparable between DL-MC MBF, manual-MC MBF from Operators (AUC=0.897, 0.892 and 0.889, respectively; p>0.05), standard non-AI automatic MC (AUC=0.877; p>0.05) and significantly higher than No-MC (AUC=0.835; p<0.05). Similar findings were observed with MFR. The 95% confidence limits for agreement with the operator were ±0.49ml/g/min (mean difference = 0.00) for MFR and ±0.24ml/g/min (mean difference = 0.00) for MBF.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DL-MC is significantly faster but diagnostically comparable to manual-MC. The quantitative results obtained with DL-MC for MBF and MFR are in excellent agreement with those manually corrected by experienced operators compared to standard non-AI automatic MC in patients undergoing <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz PET-MPI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12236872/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.27.25330436\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.27.25330436","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:18f -氟吡唑PET心肌血流量(MBF)和血流储备(MFR)的精确定量在很大程度上依赖于运动校正(MC)。然而,手动逐帧校正会导致观测者之间的显著差异,耗时,并且需要大量的经验。我们提出了一个用于18f -氟吡唑PET自动MC的深度学习(DL)框架。方法:该方法采用基于3D ResNet的架构,采用3D PET体并输出运动向量。采用5倍交叉验证对来自32个III期临床试验(NCT01347710)的数据进行验证。由两名经验丰富的操作员进行手动校正作为基础真理,使用模拟向量的数据增强增强了训练的鲁棒性。该研究将DL方法与手动和标准非人工智能自动MC方法进行了比较,使用最小节段MBF和MFR评估一致性和诊断准确性。结果:DL-MC MBF与手动- mc MBF的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)具有可比性(AUC分别=0.897、0.892和0.889);p>0.05),标准非ai自动MC (AUC=0.877;p < 0.05),显著高于No-MC (AUC=0.835;结论:DL-MC明显快于manual-MC,但在诊断上与manual-MC相当。与接受18 f -氟吡唑PET-MPI的患者的标准非人工智能自动MC相比,DL-MC获得的MBF和MFR定量结果与经验丰富的操作员手动校正的结果非常吻合。
Dynamic frame-by-frame motion correction for 18F-flurpiridaz PET-MPI using convolution neural network.
Purpose: Precise quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) in 18F-flurpiridaz PET significantly relies on motion correction (MC). However, the manual frame-by-frame correction leads to significant inter-observer variability, time-consuming, and requires significant experience. We propose a deep learning (DL) framework for automatic MC of 18F-flurpiridaz PET.
Methods: The method employs a 3D ResNet based architecture that takes 3D PET volumes and outputs motion vectors. It was validated using 5-fold cross-validation on data from 32 sites of a Phase III clinical trial (NCT01347710). Manual corrections from two experienced operators served as ground truth, and data augmentation using simulated vectors enhanced training robustness. The study compared the DL approach to both manual and standard non-AI automatic MC methods, assessing agreement and diagnostic accuracy using minimal segmental MBF and MFR.
Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for significant CAD were comparable between DL-MC MBF, manual-MC MBF from Operators (AUC=0.897, 0.892 and 0.889, respectively; p>0.05), standard non-AI automatic MC (AUC=0.877; p>0.05) and significantly higher than No-MC (AUC=0.835; p<0.05). Similar findings were observed with MFR. The 95% confidence limits for agreement with the operator were ±0.49ml/g/min (mean difference = 0.00) for MFR and ±0.24ml/g/min (mean difference = 0.00) for MBF.
Conclusion: DL-MC is significantly faster but diagnostically comparable to manual-MC. The quantitative results obtained with DL-MC for MBF and MFR are in excellent agreement with those manually corrected by experienced operators compared to standard non-AI automatic MC in patients undergoing 18F-flurpiridaz PET-MPI.