Comparison of Automatic Segmentation and Preprocessing Approaches for Dynamic Total-Body 3D Pet Images with Different Pet Tracers.

Segmentation is a routine step in PET image analysis, and few automatic tools have been developed for it. However, excluding supervised methods with their own limitations, they are typically designed for older, small images and the implementations are no longer publicly available. Here, we test if d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine Vol. 39; no. 1; pp. 382 - 400
Autores principales: Jaakkola, Maria K., Rivera Pineda, Marcela Xiomara, Díaz, Rafael, Rantala, Maria, Jalo, Anna, Kärpijoki, Henri, Saari, Teemu, Maaniitty, Teemu, Keller, Thomas, Louhi, Heli, Wahlroos, Saara, Haaparanta-Solin, Merja, Solin, Olof, Hentilä, Jaakko, Helin, Jatta S., Nissinen, Tuuli A., Eskola, Olli, Rajander, Johan, Knuuti, Juhani, Virtanen, Kirsi A.
Formato: diagnostic images equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Feb2026
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=191694210&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 191694210
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        29482925
        NR3A
      jtl: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine
      issn: 29482925
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Feb2026
      vid: 39
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        191694210
        190842556
        191694210
        191694210
        10.1007/s10278-025-01540-4
        191694210
      ppf: 382
      ppct: 18
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Comparison of Automatic Segmentation and Preprocessing Approaches for Dynamic Total-Body 3D Pet Images with Different Pet Tracers.
      aug:
        au:
          Jaakkola, Maria K.
          Rivera Pineda, Marcela Xiomara
          Díaz, Rafael
          Rantala, Maria
          Jalo, Anna
          Kärpijoki, Henri
          Saari, Teemu
          Maaniitty, Teemu
          Keller, Thomas
          Louhi, Heli
          Wahlroos, Saara
          Haaparanta-Solin, Merja
          Solin, Olof
          Hentilä, Jaakko
          Helin, Jatta S.
          Nissinen, Tuuli A.
          Eskola, Olli
          Rajander, Johan
          Knuuti, Juhani
          Virtanen, Kirsi A.
        affil: https://ror.org/029pk6x14 Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
      sug:
        subj:
          Positron-Emission Tomography Methods
          Automation
          Imaging, Three-Dimensional
          Image Processing, Computer Assisted
          Clustering Algorithms
          Human
          Animal Studies
          Rats
          Comparative Studies
          Machine Learning
          Validation Studies
          Sensitivity and Specificity
          Descriptive Statistics
          Data Analysis Software
          Noise
          Brain Radiography
          Heart Radiography
          Lung Radiography
          Pituitary Gland Radiography
          Thyroid Gland Radiography
          Kidney Radiography
          Liver Radiography
          Aorta Radiography
      ab: Segmentation is a routine step in PET image analysis, and few automatic tools have been developed for it. However, excluding supervised methods with their own limitations, they are typically designed for older, small images and the implementations are no longer publicly available. Here, we test if different commonly used building blocks of the automatic methods work with large modern total-body PET images. Dynamic total-body images from five different datasets are used for evaluation purposes, and the tested algorithms cover wide range of different preprocessing approaches and unsupervised segmentation methods. The validation is done by comparing the obtained segments to manually drawn ones using Jaccard index, Dice score, precision, and recall as measures of match. Out of the 17 considered segmentation methods, only 6 were computationally usable and provided enough segments for the needs of this study. Among these six feasible methods, hierarchical clustering and HDBSCAN had systematically the lowest Jaccard indices with the manual segmentations, whereas both GMM and k-means had median Jaccards of 0.58 over different organ segments and data sets. GMM outperformed k-means in human data, but with rat images, the two methods had equally good performance k-means having slightly stronger precision and GMM recall. We conclude that most of the commonly used unsupervised segmentation methods are computationally infeasible with the modern PET images, classical clustering algorithms k-means and especially Gaussian mixture model being the most promising candidates for further method development. Even though preprocessing, particularly denoising, improved the results, small organs remained difficult to segment.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        diagnostic images
        equations & formulas
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N