| Title |
Fully automated calculation of image-derived input function in simultaneous PET/MRI in a sheep model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
EJNMMI Physics, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40658-016-0139-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thies H. Jochimsen, Vilia Zeisig, Jessica Schulz, Peter Werner, Marianne Patt, Jörg Patt, Antje Y. Dreyer, Johannes Boltze, Henryk Barthel, Osama Sabri, Bernhard Sattler |
| Abstract |
Obtaining the arterial input function (AIF) from image data in dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) examinations is a non-invasive alternative to arterial blood sampling. In simultaneous PET/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI), high-resolution MRI angiographies can be used to define major arteries for correction of partial-volume effects (PVE) and point spread function (PSF) response in the PET data. The present study describes a fully automated method to obtain the image-derived input function (IDIF) in PET/MRI. Results are compared to those obtained by arterial blood sampling. To segment the trunk of the major arteries in the neck, a high-resolution time-of-flight MRI angiography was postprocessed by a vessel-enhancement filter based on the inertia tensor. Together with the measured PSF of the PET subsystem, the arterial mask was used for geometrical deconvolution, yielding the time-resolved activity concentration averaged over a major artery. The method was compared to manual arterial blood sampling at the hind leg of 21 sheep (animal stroke model) during measurement of blood flow with O15-water. Absolute quantification of activity concentration was compared after bolus passage during steady state, i.e., between 2.5- and 5-min post injection. Cerebral blood flow (CBF) values from blood sampling and IDIF were also compared. The cross-calibration factor obtained by comparing activity concentrations in blood samples and IDIF during steady state is 0.98 ± 0.10. In all examinations, the IDIF provided a much earlier and sharper bolus peak than in the time course of activity concentration obtained by arterial blood sampling. CBF using the IDIF was 22 % higher than CBF obtained by using the AIF yielded by blood sampling. The small deviation between arterial blood sampling and IDIF during steady state indicates that correction of PVE and PSF is possible with the method presented. The differences in bolus dynamics and, hence, CBF values can be explained by the different sampling locations (hind leg vs. major neck arteries) with differences in delay/dispersion. It will be the topic of further work to test the method on humans with the perspective of replacing invasive blood sampling by an IDIF using simultaneous PET/MRI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 9 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
| Engineering | 6 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,357,941
of 22,846,662 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Physics
#76
of 181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,563
of 400,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Physics
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,846,662 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 181 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.