Skip to main content

Table 3 Median errors for different methods between MRAC and CTAC

From: Evaluation of three methods for delineation and attenuation estimation of the sinus region in MR-based attenuation correction for brain PET-MR imaging

 

NON TOF reconstruction

TOF reconstruction

Bulk (%)

Cuboid (%)

Template (%)

Improvement (%)

Bulk (%)

Cuboid (%)

Template (%)

Improvement (%)

Precentral

 − 0.13

 − 0.22

 − 0.24

0.10

0.16

0.06

0.08

 − 0.09

Rolandic_Oper

0.54

0.40

0.38

 − 0.15

0.75

0.63

0.64

 − 0.12

Supp_Motor Area

0.20

0.14

0.15

 − 0.06

0.22

0.14

0.16

 − 0.07

Olfactory

0.36

0.11

0.10

 − 0.26

0.49

0.32

0.34

 − 0.16

Region #5

 − 0.12

 − 0.34

 − 0.39

0.24

0.24

0.09

0.08

 − 0.15

Frontal_Sup

 − 1.21

 − 1.28

 − 1.31

0.09

 − 0.26

 − 0.28

 − 0.30

0.03

Frontal_Mied

 − 0.60

 − 0.64

 − 0.65

0.05

 − 0.14

 − 0.17

 − 0.16

0.03

Frontal_Inf

0.49

0.32

0.28

 − 0.19

0.60

0.58

0.57

 − 0.02

Rectus

2.32

1.70

1.88

 − 0.53

1.30

1.23

1.19

 − 0.09

Insula

1.27

1.10

1.16

 − 0.14

1.53

1.48

1.46

 − 0.06

Cingulum_Ant

1.06

1.02

1.00

 − 0.06

1.20

1.04

1.04

 − 0.16

Cingulum_Mid

0.92

0.85

0.85

 − 0.06

0.72

0.65

0.65

 − 0.07

Cingulum_Post

0.44

0.29

0.27

 − 0.16

1.17

0.91

0.85

 − 0.29

Hippocampus/ ParaHippocampal

0.11

 − 0.15

 − 0.19

0.07

0.90

0.34

0.27

 − 0.60

Amygdala

0.11

 − 0.02

 − 0.03

 − 0.09

0.77

0.41

0.34

 − 0.39

Calcarine

 − 0.20

 − 0.27

 − 0.27

0.07

0.83

0.52

0.49

 − 0.33

Cuneus

 − 0.54

 − 0.62

 − 0.61

0.07

0.17

 − 0.01

0.02

 − 0.15

Lingual

 − 0.28

 − 0.37

 − 0.38

0.09

0.71

0.09

0.11

 − 0.60

Occipital

 − 1.16

 − 1.22

 − 1.23

0.07

 − 0.49

 − 0.72

 − 0.70

0.22

Fusiform

 − 0.86

 − 1.07

 − 1.08

0.22

 − 0.05

 − 0.73

 − 0.77

0.71

Postcentral

0.16

0.11

0.12

 − 0.05

0.34

0.21

0.23

 − 0.12

SupraMarginal

0.25

0.05

0.05

 − 0.20

0.73

0.30

0.34

 − 0.41

Angular

0.73

0.65

0.65

 − 0.08

0.56

0.42

0.45

 − 0.12

Precuneus

 − 0.25

 − 0.31

 − 0.33

0.07

0.33

0.22

0.20

 − 0.12

Paracentral Lobule

 − 0.29

 − 0.34

 − 0.33

0.05

0.18

 − 0.05

 − 0.02

 − 0.14

Caudate

 − 0.05

 − 0.17

 − 0.16

0.12

0.48

0.25

0.29

 − 0.21

Putamen

1.25

1.22

1.22

 − 0.03

1.54

1.35

1.34

 − 0.20

Pallidum

0.80

0.73

0.77

 − 0.05

0.86

0.70

0.69

 − 0.16

Thalamus

 − 0.25

 − 0.46

 − 0.43

0.19

0.28

 − 0.16

 − 0.11

 − 0.14

Heschl

0.26

0.04

0.07

 − 0.20

0.74

0.34

0.36

 − 0.39

Parietal

 − 0.23

 − 0.43

 − 0.42

0.20

0.40

 − 0.07

 − 0.03

 − 0.35

Temporal

 − 0.40

 − 0.47

 − 0.45

0.06

 − 0.39

 − 0.52

 − 0.50

0.12

Vermis

0.37

0.22

0.18

 − 0.17

0.98

0.23

0.20

 − 0.77

Cerebellum Crus

 − 0.50

 − 1.59

 − 1.37

0.98

 − 0.40

 − 1.91

 − 1.92

1.52

Cerebellum

 − 0.73

 − 1.59

 − 1.36

0.74

 − 0.36

 − 1.83

 − 1.37

1.24

Error minimum

 − 1.21

 − 1.59

 − 1.37

 

 − 0.49

 − 1.91

 − 1.92

 

Error maximum

2.32

1.70

1.88

 

1.54

1.48

1.46

 
  1. The cuboid and template methods provide at least equal or better performance than the bulk method, although cerebellum notably worsens in both TOF and non-TOF reconstruction. This effect is caused by the overestimation of attenuation in the bulk method. Improvement denotes the average change from bulk to cuboid and template methods. Four largest and smallest improvements are noted in bold and italics respectively
Back to article page

BMC Medical Imaging

ISSN: 1471-2342

Contact us