ArticlePloS one2024
Investigation of the effectiveness of no-reference metric in image evaluation in nuclear medicine.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn nuclear medicine, normalized mean square error (NMSE) is widely used for image quality evaluation and machine adjustment. However, evaluating clinical images in nuclear medicine using NMSE necessitates acquiring a reference image, which is time consuming and impractical. Therefore, it is necessary to explore no-reference metrics, such as perception-based image quality evaluator (PIQE) and natural image quality evaluator (NIQE), as alternatives for evaluating the quality of clinical images used in nuclear medicine. PURPOSE: To examine whether no-reference metrics can be applied to image quality evaluations for clinical images in nuclear medicine.
methodsImages of the Hoffman Brain Phantom containing 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) were obtained using Biograph Vision (Siemens Co., Ltd). From the collected images, 14 images with varying pixel counts and acquisition times were created. Sixteen images were visually evaluated by five image experts and ranked accordingly. Image quality was assessed using NMSE, PIQE, and NIQE, and rankings were calculated based on these scores.
resultsThe Spearman's significance test revealed a strong correlation between image quality evaluations using PIQE and visual evaluations by specialists (p<0.0001). PIQE demonstrated comparable performance to image experts in evaluating image quality, suggesting its potential for clinical image quality assessment in nuclear medicine.
conclusionsPIQE offers a viable method for evaluating image quality in nuclear medicine, presenting a promising alternative to traditional visual inspection methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.