Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37010001›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2023

Need for objective task-based evaluation of deep learning-based denoising methods: A study in the context of myocardial perfusion SPECT.

Zitong Yu, Md Ashequr Rahman, Richard Laforest, Thomas H Schindler, Robert J Gropler, Richard L Wahl, Barry A Siegel, Abhinav K Jha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. AI in SPECT Imaging: Opportunities and Challenges.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Can patient-specific acquisition protocol improve performance on defect detection task in myocardial perfusion SPECT?Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Need for objective task-based evaluation of AI-based segmentation methods for quantitative PET.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2023
    Article
  19. A task-specific deep-learning-based denoising approach for myocardial perfusion SPECT.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Zitong YuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Md Ashequr RahmanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Richard LaforestMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Thomas H SchindlerMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Robert J GroplerMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Richard L WahlMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Barry A SiegelMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Abhinav K JhaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

Funding

Validation and dissemination of novel physical phantoms for quantitative theranostics researchR01EB031962 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JHA, ABHINAV K · 2022 to 2025
$2.4M
A no-gold-standard framework to objectively evaluate quantitative imaging methods with patient dataR01EB031051 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JHA, ABHINAV K · 2021 to 2025
$2.1M
Transmission-less attenuation and scatter compensation in myocardial perfusion SPECT with list-mode dataR21EB024647 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JHA, ABHINAV K · 2018 to 2019
$430k
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB031051NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB031962NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB024647
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence-based methods have generated substantial interest in nuclear medicine. An area of significant interest has been the use of deep-learning (DL)-based approaches for denoising images acquired with lower doses, shorter acquisition times, or both. Objective evaluation of these approaches is essential for clinical application. PURPOSE: DL-based approaches for denoising nuclear-medicine images have typically been evaluated using fidelity-based figures of merit (FoMs) such as root mean squared error (RMSE) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM). However, these images are acquired for clinical tasks and thus should be evaluated based on their performance in these tasks. Our objectives were to: (1) investigate whether evaluation with these FoMs is consistent with objective clinical-task-based evaluation; (2) provide a theoretical analysis for determining the impact of denoising on signal-detection tasks; and (3) demonstrate the utility of virtual imaging trials (VITs) to evaluate DL-based methods.

methodsA VIT to evaluate a DL-based method for denoising myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) images was conducted. To conduct this evaluation study, we followed the recently published best practices for the evaluation of AI algorithms for nuclear medicine (the RELAINCE guidelines). An anthropomorphic patient population modeling clinically relevant variability was simulated. Projection data for this patient population at normal and low-dose count levels (20%, 15%, 10%, 5%) were generated using well-validated Monte Carlo-based simulations. The images were reconstructed using a 3-D ordered-subsets expectation maximization-based approach. Next, the low-dose images were denoised using a commonly used convolutional neural network-based approach. The impact of DL-based denoising was evaluated using both fidelity-based FoMs and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), which quantified performance on the clinical task of detecting perfusion defects in MPS images as obtained using a model observer with anthropomorphic channels. We then provide a mathematical treatment to probe the impact of post-processing operations on signal-detection tasks and use this treatment to analyze the findings of this study.

resultsBased on fidelity-based FoMs, denoising using the considered DL-based method led to significantly superior performance. However, based on ROC analysis, denoising did not improve, and in fact, often degraded detection-task performance. This discordance between fidelity-based FoMs and task-based evaluation was observed at all the low-dose levels and for different cardiac-defect types. Our theoretical analysis revealed that the major reason for this degraded performance was that the denoising method reduced the difference in the means of the reconstructed images and of the channel operator-extracted feature vectors between the defect-absent and defect-present cases.

conclusionsThe results show the discrepancy between the evaluation of DL-based methods with fidelity-based metrics versus the evaluation on clinical tasks. This motivates the need for objective task-based evaluation of DL-based denoising approaches. Further, this study shows how VITs provide a mechanism to conduct such evaluations computationally, in a time and resource-efficient setting, and avoid risks such as radiation dose to the patient. Finally, our theoretical treatment reveals insights into the reasons for the limited performance of the denoising approach and may be used to probe the effect of other post-processing operations on signal-detection tasks.

Indexed as

Deep LearningArtificial IntelligenceHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeural Networks, ComputerTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photondeep learningmodel observerSPECTtask-based evaluation

Identifiers

PMID37010001
PMCPMC10524194

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.