...
首页> 外文期刊>Physics in medicine and biology. >The role of acquisition and quantification methods in myocardial blood flow estimability for myocardial perfusion imaging CT
【24h】

The role of acquisition and quantification methods in myocardial blood flow estimability for myocardial perfusion imaging CT

机译:采集和定量方法在心肌灌注成像CT的心肌血流预测中的作用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In this work, we clarified the role of acquisition parameters and quantification methods in myocardial blood flow (MBF) estimability for myocardial perfusion imaging using CT (MPI-CT). We used a physiologic model with a CT simulator to generate time-attenuation curves across a range of imaging conditions, i.e. tube current-time product, imaging duration, and temporal sampling, and physiologic conditions, i.e. MBF and arterial input function width. We assessed MBF estimability by precision (interquartile range of MBF estimates) and bias (difference between median MBF estimate and reference MBF) for multiple quantification methods. Methods included: six existing model-based deconvolution models, such as the plug-flow tissue uptake model (PTU), Fermi function model, and single-compartment model (SCM); two proposed robust physiologic models (RPM1, RPM2); model-independent singular value decomposition with Tikhonov regularization determined by the L-curve criterion (LSVD); and maximum upslope (MUP). Simulations show that MBF estimability is most affected by changes in imaging duration for model-based methods and by changes in tube current-time product and sampling interval for model-independent methods. Models with three parameters, i.e. RPM1, RPM2, and SCM, gave least biased and most precise MBF estimates. The average relative bias (precision) for RPM1, RPM2, and SCM was = 11% (= 10%) and the models produced high-quality MBF maps in CT simulated phantom data as well as in a porcine model of coronary artery stenosis. In terms of precision, the methods ranked best-to-worst are: RPM1 RPM2 Fermi SCM LSVD MUP other methods. In terms of bias, the models ranked best-to-worst are: SCM RPM2 RPM1 PTU LSVD other methods. Models with four or more parameters, particularly five-parameter models, had very poor precision (as much as 310% uncertainty) and/or significant bias (as much as 493%) and were sensitive to parameter initialization, thus suggesting the presence of multiple local minima. For improved estimates of MBF from MPI-CT, it is recommended to use reduced models that incorporate prior knowledge of physiology and contrast agent uptake, such as the proposed RPM1 and RPM2 models.
机译:在这项工作中,我们阐明了使用CT(MPI-CT)对心肌灌注成像的心肌血流(MBF)可评估中的采集参数和定量方法的作用。我们使用了一个生理模型,具有CT模拟器,在一系列成像条件下产生时间衰减曲线,即管函数时间产品,成像持续时间和时间采样,以及生理条件,即MBF和动脉输入功能宽度。我们通过精确(MBF估计的整体范围)和偏差(中位数MBF估计和参考MBF之间的差异)评估了MBF可预测性,用于多种量化方法。方法包括:六种现有的基于模型的碎屑模型,如插液组织摄取模型(PTU),费米功能模型和单室模型(SCM);两种提出的强大的生理模型(RPM1,RPM2);通过L-Curve标准(LSVD)确定与Tikhonov规则的模型独立的奇异值分解;和最大上升器(MUP)。模拟表明,MBF可预测性最大程度受模型的基于模型方法的变化以及管函数时间产品和模型无关方法的采样间隔的变化影响。具有三个参数的模型,即RPM1,RPM2和SCM,给出了最不偏置和最精确的MBF估计。用于RPM1,RPM2和SCM的平均相对偏差(精度)是& = 11%(& = 10%),并且模型在CT模拟幻像数据以及冠状动脉的猪模型中产生了高质量的MBF地图动脉狭窄。在精度方面,该方法排名最为糟糕的是:RPM1> RPM2&费米& SCM& lsvd& MUP&&其他方法。在偏见方面,模型排名最为糟糕的是:SCM> RPM2& RPM1和GT; ptu& lsvd&&其他方法。具有四个或更多参数的模型,特别是五参数模型,精度非常差(多达310%的不确定性)和/或显着的偏差(高达493%)并且对参数初始化敏感,因此表明存在多个当地最小值。为了改进来自MPI-CT的MBF估计,建议使用掺入生理和造影剂摄取的先前知识的减少模型,例如所提出的RPM1和RPM2模型。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号