Need for objective task-based evaluation of deep learning-based denoising methods: A study in the context of myocardial perfusion SPECT.
SPECT
deep learning
model observer
task-based evaluation
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
revised:
20
01
2023
received:
05
09
2022
accepted:
01
03
2023
pmc-release:
01
07
2024
medline:
11
7
2023
pubmed:
4
4
2023
entrez:
3
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Artificial intelligence-based methods have generated substantial interest in nuclear medicine. An area of significant interest has been the use of deep-learning (DL)-based approaches for denoising images acquired with lower doses, shorter acquisition times, or both. Objective evaluation of these approaches is essential for clinical application. DL-based approaches for denoising nuclear-medicine images have typically been evaluated using fidelity-based figures of merit (FoMs) such as root mean squared error (RMSE) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM). However, these images are acquired for clinical tasks and thus should be evaluated based on their performance in these tasks. Our objectives were to: (1) investigate whether evaluation with these FoMs is consistent with objective clinical-task-based evaluation; (2) provide a theoretical analysis for determining the impact of denoising on signal-detection tasks; and (3) demonstrate the utility of virtual imaging trials (VITs) to evaluate DL-based methods. A VIT to evaluate a DL-based method for denoising myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) images was conducted. To conduct this evaluation study, we followed the recently published best practices for the evaluation of AI algorithms for nuclear medicine (the RELAINCE guidelines). An anthropomorphic patient population modeling clinically relevant variability was simulated. Projection data for this patient population at normal and low-dose count levels (20%, 15%, 10%, 5%) were generated using well-validated Monte Carlo-based simulations. The images were reconstructed using a 3-D ordered-subsets expectation maximization-based approach. Next, the low-dose images were denoised using a commonly used convolutional neural network-based approach. The impact of DL-based denoising was evaluated using both fidelity-based FoMs and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), which quantified performance on the clinical task of detecting perfusion defects in MPS images as obtained using a model observer with anthropomorphic channels. We then provide a mathematical treatment to probe the impact of post-processing operations on signal-detection tasks and use this treatment to analyze the findings of this study. Based on fidelity-based FoMs, denoising using the considered DL-based method led to significantly superior performance. However, based on ROC analysis, denoising did not improve, and in fact, often degraded detection-task performance. This discordance between fidelity-based FoMs and task-based evaluation was observed at all the low-dose levels and for different cardiac-defect types. Our theoretical analysis revealed that the major reason for this degraded performance was that the denoising method reduced the difference in the means of the reconstructed images and of the channel operator-extracted feature vectors between the defect-absent and defect-present cases. The results show the discrepancy between the evaluation of DL-based methods with fidelity-based metrics versus the evaluation on clinical tasks. This motivates the need for objective task-based evaluation of DL-based denoising approaches. Further, this study shows how VITs provide a mechanism to conduct such evaluations computationally, in a time and resource-efficient setting, and avoid risks such as radiation dose to the patient. Finally, our theoretical treatment reveals insights into the reasons for the limited performance of the denoising approach and may be used to probe the effect of other post-processing operations on signal-detection tasks.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Artificial intelligence-based methods have generated substantial interest in nuclear medicine. An area of significant interest has been the use of deep-learning (DL)-based approaches for denoising images acquired with lower doses, shorter acquisition times, or both. Objective evaluation of these approaches is essential for clinical application.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
DL-based approaches for denoising nuclear-medicine images have typically been evaluated using fidelity-based figures of merit (FoMs) such as root mean squared error (RMSE) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM). However, these images are acquired for clinical tasks and thus should be evaluated based on their performance in these tasks. Our objectives were to: (1) investigate whether evaluation with these FoMs is consistent with objective clinical-task-based evaluation; (2) provide a theoretical analysis for determining the impact of denoising on signal-detection tasks; and (3) demonstrate the utility of virtual imaging trials (VITs) to evaluate DL-based methods.
METHODS
METHODS
A VIT to evaluate a DL-based method for denoising myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) images was conducted. To conduct this evaluation study, we followed the recently published best practices for the evaluation of AI algorithms for nuclear medicine (the RELAINCE guidelines). An anthropomorphic patient population modeling clinically relevant variability was simulated. Projection data for this patient population at normal and low-dose count levels (20%, 15%, 10%, 5%) were generated using well-validated Monte Carlo-based simulations. The images were reconstructed using a 3-D ordered-subsets expectation maximization-based approach. Next, the low-dose images were denoised using a commonly used convolutional neural network-based approach. The impact of DL-based denoising was evaluated using both fidelity-based FoMs and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), which quantified performance on the clinical task of detecting perfusion defects in MPS images as obtained using a model observer with anthropomorphic channels. We then provide a mathematical treatment to probe the impact of post-processing operations on signal-detection tasks and use this treatment to analyze the findings of this study.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on fidelity-based FoMs, denoising using the considered DL-based method led to significantly superior performance. However, based on ROC analysis, denoising did not improve, and in fact, often degraded detection-task performance. This discordance between fidelity-based FoMs and task-based evaluation was observed at all the low-dose levels and for different cardiac-defect types. Our theoretical analysis revealed that the major reason for this degraded performance was that the denoising method reduced the difference in the means of the reconstructed images and of the channel operator-extracted feature vectors between the defect-absent and defect-present cases.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The results show the discrepancy between the evaluation of DL-based methods with fidelity-based metrics versus the evaluation on clinical tasks. This motivates the need for objective task-based evaluation of DL-based denoising approaches. Further, this study shows how VITs provide a mechanism to conduct such evaluations computationally, in a time and resource-efficient setting, and avoid risks such as radiation dose to the patient. Finally, our theoretical treatment reveals insights into the reasons for the limited performance of the denoising approach and may be used to probe the effect of other post-processing operations on signal-detection tasks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37010001
doi: 10.1002/mp.16407
pmc: PMC10524194
mid: NIHMS1902176
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4122-4137Subventions
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R01 EB031051
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R21 EB024647
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R01 EB031962
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Trials. 2021 Jan 19;22(1):64
pubmed: 33468186
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020 Apr;39(4):1064-1072
pubmed: 31535985
J Nucl Med. 2000 Mar;41(3):514-21
pubmed: 10716327
Radiol Artif Intell. 2020 Dec 02;3(2):e200137
pubmed: 33937860
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017 Apr;36(4):917-929
pubmed: 28026757
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018 Jun;37(6):1488-1497
pubmed: 29870376
Med Phys. 2019 Aug;46(8):3555-3564
pubmed: 31131901
J Digit Imaging. 2020 Apr;33(2):504-515
pubmed: 31515756
J Nucl Med. 2018 Oct;59(10):1624-1629
pubmed: 29449446
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2020 Jul;7(4):042805
pubmed: 32313817
Med Phys. 2010 Sep;37(9):4902-15
pubmed: 20964209
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2021 Feb;11595:
pubmed: 34658480
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009 Sep;28(9):1459-67
pubmed: 19336295
Acad Radiol. 2006 Mar;13(3):353-62
pubmed: 16488848
PET Clin. 2021 Oct;16(4):493-511
pubmed: 34537127
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Nov 2;1(7):e185474
pubmed: 30646401
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020 Sep;39(9):2893-2903
pubmed: 32167887
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2023 Feb;12463:
pubmed: 37274423
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2021 Sep;40(9):2295-2305
pubmed: 33929958
Med Phys. 2013 Apr;40(4):043701
pubmed: 23556927
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jul 07;60(13):5083-101
pubmed: 26083239
Radiology. 2019 Mar;290(3):649-656
pubmed: 30526350
J Nucl Med. 2022 Sep;63(9):1288-1299
pubmed: 35618476
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Aug 22;62(18):7300-7320
pubmed: 28829044
J Nucl Med. 2019 Aug;60(8):1042-1043
pubmed: 30926652
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Apr 7;61(7):2780-800
pubmed: 26982626
J Nucl Med. 2020 Feb;61(2):298-303
pubmed: 31324711
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2022 Feb-Mar;12035:
pubmed: 35847481
J Med Phys. 2010 Jan;35(1):42-7
pubmed: 20177569
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1989 Aug;29(4):257-72
pubmed: 2791527
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018 Jun;37(6):1348-1357
pubmed: 29870364
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2016 Jan;3(1):015503
pubmed: 26839913
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018 Jun;37(6):1333-1347
pubmed: 29870363
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Mar 7;61(5):2048-66
pubmed: 26895287
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Sep 10;63(18):185005
pubmed: 30113313
Med Phys. 2021 Jan;48(1):156-168
pubmed: 33145782
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017 Dec;36(12):2524-2535
pubmed: 28622671
Stat Med. 1998 May 15;17(9):1033-53
pubmed: 9612889
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Jun 21;59(12):2935-53
pubmed: 24841729
Med Phys. 2019 Jul;46(7):3142-3155
pubmed: 31077390
J Nucl Med. 2002 Mar;43(3):432-8
pubmed: 11884505
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1995 May;12(5):834-52
pubmed: 7730951
Biomed Opt Express. 2017 Jan 09;8(2):679-694
pubmed: 28270976
J Nucl Cardiol. 2021 Dec;28(6):2761-2779
pubmed: 32347527
J Nucl Med. 1988 May;29(5):643-50
pubmed: 3259624
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Mar 7;58(5):1465-78
pubmed: 23403399
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Sep 7;55(17):4949-61
pubmed: 20693615
Invest Radiol. 1986 Sep;21(9):720-33
pubmed: 3095258
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002 Sep;21(9):1040-50
pubmed: 12564872
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1998 Jun;15(6):1520-35
pubmed: 9612940
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2021 Nov;8(6):065501
pubmed: 34796251
J Nucl Med. 2021 Apr;62(4):528-535
pubmed: 32859710
J Opt Soc Am A. 1990 Jul;7(7):1266-78
pubmed: 2370589
J Nucl Med. 2020 Sep;61(9):1388-1396
pubmed: 31924718