Hutton, BF;
Thomas, BA;
Erlandsson, K;
Bousse, A;
Reilhac-Laborde, A;
Kazantsev, D;
Pedemonte, S;
... Ourselin, S; + view all
(2013)
What approach to brain partial volume correction is best for PET/MRI?
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment
, 702
29 - 33.
10.1016/j.nima.2012.07.059.
![[thumbnail of 1390050.pdf]](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png) Preview |
PDF
1390050.pdf Download (492kB) |
Abstract
Many partial volume correction approaches make use of anatomical information, readily available in PET/MRI systems but it is not clear what approach is best. Seven novel approaches to partial volume correction were evaluated, including several post-reconstruction methods and several reconstruction methods that incorporate anatomical information. These were compared with an MRI-independent approach (reblurred van Cittert ) and uncorrected data. Monte Carlo PET data were generated for activity distributions representing both 18F FDG and amyloid tracer uptake. Post-reconstruction methods provided the best recovery with ideal segmentation but were particularly sensitive to mis-registration. Alternative approaches performed better in maintaining lesion contrast (unseen in MRI) with good noise control. These were also relatively insensitive to mis-registration errors. The choice of method will depend on the specific application and reliability of segmentation and registration algorithms.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
