Medical Imaging 2022: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment 2022
DOI: 10.1117/12.2605762
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

No-gold-standard evaluation of quantitative imaging methods in the presence of correlated noise

Abstract: Objective evaluation of quantitative imaging (QI) methods with patient data is highly desirable, but is hindered by the lack or unreliability of an available gold standard. To address this issue, techniques that can evaluate QI methods without access to a gold standard are being actively developed. These techniques assume that the true and measured values are linearly related by a slope, bias, and Gaussian-distributed noise term, where the noise between measurements made by different methods is independent of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To address this limitation, no-gold-standard evaluation techniques have been developed. [26][27][28][29] These techniques have demonstrated the efficacy in evaluating PET segmentation methods on clinically relevant tasks even without any knowledge of the ground truth. [30][31][32] Thus, these techniques could provide a mechanism to perform objective task-based evaluation of segmentation methods in the absence of ground truth.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To address this limitation, no-gold-standard evaluation techniques have been developed. [26][27][28][29] These techniques have demonstrated the efficacy in evaluating PET segmentation methods on clinically relevant tasks even without any knowledge of the ground truth. [30][31][32] Thus, these techniques could provide a mechanism to perform objective task-based evaluation of segmentation methods in the absence of ground truth.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[26][27][28][29] These techniques have demonstrated the efficacy in evaluating PET segmentation methods on clinically relevant tasks even without any knowledge of the ground truth. [30][31][32] Thus, these techniques could provide a mechanism to perform objective task-based evaluation of segmentation methods in the absence of ground truth. Another limitation of this study is that we evaluated the considered AI-based segmentation method only on the clinical tasks of quantifying MTV/TLG.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To address this challenge, no-gold-standard evaluation techniques have been developed. 51,62,[75][76][77][78] These techniques would provide a mechanism to evaluate the proposed method with patient data. A second limitation is that the proposed method focused on segmenting the caudate, putamen, and GP from DaT-SPECT images and considered the rest of the brain as background.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Validation with patient studies requires a gold standard that is not available in DaT‐SPECT studies. To address this challenge, no‐gold‐standard evaluation techniques have been developed 51,62,75–78 . These techniques would provide a mechanism to evaluate the proposed method with patient data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Validation with patient studies requires a gold standard and that is not available for these types of images. To address this challenge, no-gold-standard (NGS) evaluation techniques have been developed (Kupinski et al, 2002;Jha et al, 2012Jha et al, , 2016Jha et al, , 2017bLiu et al, 2020). These techniques would provide an approach to evaluate the proposed method with patient studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%