Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study aims to investigate robust attenuation correction (AC) by generating attenuation maps (μ-maps) from non-attenuation-corrected (NAC) brain SPECT data using transfer learning (TL). Four sets of brain SPECT data (4×30) were retrospectively collected: S-TRODAT-1, S-ECD, G-TRODAT-1 and G-ECD. A 3D attention-based conditional generative adversarial network was pre-trained using 22 paired 3D NAC SPECT images and corresponding CT μ-maps for four patient groups. Various numbers (n=4-22) of paired NAC SPECT and corresponding μ-maps from S-TRODAT-1 were then used to fine-tune (FT) the other three pre-trained DL networks, i.e., S-ECD, G-TRODAT-1 and G-ECD. All patients in S-TRODAT-1 group were tested on their own network (DL-AC), and on the pre-trained models with FT (FT-AC) and without FT (NFT-AC). The FT-AC methods used 22 (FT22), 12 (FT12), 8 (FT8), and 4 (FT4) paired data for FT, respectively. Our results show that FT22 and FT12 could outperform DL-AC for cross-tracer S-ECD and cross-scanner G-TRODAT-1 using CT-based AC (CT-AC) as the reference. FT22 also outperforms DL-AC for cross-tracer+cross-scanner G-ECD. FT8 performs comparably to DL-AC, while FT4 is worse than DL-AC but still better than NAC and NFT-AC in each group. Attenuation map generation is feasible for brain SPECT based on cross-tracer and/or cross-scanner FT-AC using a smaller number of patient data. The FT-AC performance improves as the number of data used for FT increases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: