What approach to brain partial volume correction is best for PET/MRI?
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.
Related
- Quantum metrology via partial quantum error correction
- What Must Survive? Exact Task-Information--State Frontiers Under Partial Task Revelation
- What Does a Semilocal Machine-Learning Correction Actually Learn? Size-Dependent Errors across Four Parent Functionals
- Partial Multistep Prediction of Chaotic Time Series: What Remains Predictable beyond the Horizon of Predictability?
- The Cross-Substrate Access Assay: What an Indicator Test Must Declare to Travel from Brain to Language Model
BibTeX
@article{hutton2026what,
title = {{What approach to brain partial volume correction is best for PET/MRI?}},
author = {B.F. Hutton and B.A. Thomas and K. Erlandsson and A. Bousse and A. Reilhac-Laborde and D. Kazantsev and S. Pedemonte and K. Vunckx and S.R. Arridge and S. Ourselin},
journal = {Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1016/j.nima.2012.07.059},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05763781v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - What approach to brain partial volume correction is best for PET/MRI?
AU - B.F. Hutton
AU - B.A. Thomas
AU - K. Erlandsson
AU - A. Bousse
AU - A. Reilhac-Laborde
AU - D. Kazantsev
AU - S. Pedemonte
AU - K. Vunckx
AU - S.R. Arridge
AU - S. Ourselin
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/25
JO - Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment
DO - 10.1016/j.nima.2012.07.059
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05763781v1
AB - 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.
SN - 0168-9002
SN - 1872-9576
ER -