Model-Based Deep Learning PET Image Reconstruction Using Forward-Backward Splitting Expectation-Maximization

We propose a forward-backward splitting algorithm to integrate deep learning into maximum- a-posteriori (MAP) positron emission tomography (PET) image reconstruction. The MAP reconstruction is split into regularization, expectation-maximization (EM), and a weighted fusion. For regularization, the us...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inIEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences Vol. 5; no. 1; pp. 54 - 64
Main Authors Mehranian, Abolfazl, Reader, Andrew J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States IEEE 01.01.2021
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:We propose a forward-backward splitting algorithm to integrate deep learning into maximum- a-posteriori (MAP) positron emission tomography (PET) image reconstruction. The MAP reconstruction is split into regularization, expectation-maximization (EM), and a weighted fusion. For regularization, the use of either a Bowsher prior (using Markov-random fields) or a residual learning unit (using convolutional-neural networks) were considered. For the latter, our proposed forward-backward splitting EM (FBSEM), accelerated with ordered subsets (OS), was unrolled into a recurrent-neural network in which network parameters (including regularization strength) are shared across all states and learned during PET reconstruction. Our network was trained and evaluated using PET-only (FBSEM-p) and PET-MR (FBSEM-pm) datasets for low-dose simulations and short-duration in-vivo brain imaging. It was compared to OSEM, Bowsher MAPEM, and a post-reconstruction U-Net denoising trained on the same PET-only (Unet-p) or PET-MR (Unet-pm) datasets. For simulations, FBSEM-p(m) and Unet-p(m) nets achieved a comparable performance, on average, 14.4% and 13.4% normalized root-mean square error (NRMSE), respectively; and both outperformed OSEM and MAPEM methods (with 20.7% and 17.7% NRMSE, respectively). For in-vivo datasets, FBSEM-p(m), Unet-p(m), MAPEM, and OSEM methods achieved average root-sum-of-squared errors of 3.9%, 5.7%, 5.9%, and 7.8% in different brain regions, respectively. In conclusion, the studied U-Net denoising method achieved a comparable performance to a representative implementation of the FBSEM net.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:2469-7311
2469-7303
DOI:10.1109/TRPMS.2020.3004408