pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28704 · v1 · pith:2IKCCUUUnew · submitted 2026-06-27 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph

NGSE-Corr: A technique for objective clinical evaluation of quantitative-imaging methods without a gold standard

Yan Liu , Ziping Liu , Zekun Li , Jingqin Luo , Daniel L. J. Thorek , Barry A. Siegel , Abhinav K. Jha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 09:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph
keywords no-gold-standard evaluationquantitative imagingmaximum likelihood estimationnoise-to-slope ratiomethod rankingSPECTclinical validationprecision assessment
0
0 comments X

The pith

NGSE-Corr ranks quantitative imaging methods by precision from measured patient data alone.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents NGSE-Corr as a way to evaluate and rank quantitative imaging methods according to how precisely they recover true values, using only the measured outputs from patients and no reference standard. It models the relationship between true values and each method's outputs as a linear function with slope, bias, and correlated Gaussian noise, then applies maximum-likelihood estimation to recover the parameters and compute a noise-to-slope ratio for ranking. This matters because reliable ranking of imaging methods is needed for clinical adoption, yet gold-standard measurements are frequently unavailable in patient studies. Numerical tests and an in silico SPECT trial showed the method recovers correct rankings at high rates that increase with cohort size.

Core claim

NGSE-Corr assumes a linear stochastic relationship between true and measured values characterized by a slope, bias, and multivariate Gaussian-distributed noise term that models correlated noise across QI methods. It derives a maximum-likelihood approach to estimate these parameters using only measured values, then computes noise-to-slope ratio to rank QI methods based on precision. In an in silico imaging trial, NGSE-Corr correctly identified the most precise QI method and ranked the methods for 95% and 91% of trials with data from 50 patients, with performance improving for larger cohorts.

What carries the argument

NGSE-Corr, which estimates parameters of a linear model with correlated multivariate Gaussian noise via maximum likelihood and derives noise-to-slope ratio (NSR) to rank methods.

If this is right

  • NGSE-Corr produces accurate rankings of QI methods without access to true values.
  • Ranking accuracy increases as the number of patients in the cohort grows.
  • The method remains reliable when the linear-noise assumptions are only partially met.
  • With 200 patients the technique matched true-value rankings in every trial instance examined.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Existing patient archives could be re-analyzed retrospectively to compare imaging protocols without new acquisitions.
  • The same linear-noise estimation approach might apply to ranking other quantitative measurement techniques if the correlation structure holds.
  • Regulatory or clinical guideline bodies could adopt the method to standardize method selection when gold standards are impractical.

Load-bearing premise

The measured values are related to the true values by a linear function plus correlated Gaussian noise across methods.

What would settle it

A clinical dataset containing independent ground-truth measurements in which NGSE-Corr produces different method rankings than the true precision ordering for more than a small fraction of patient cohorts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28704 by Abhinav K. Jha, Barry A. Siegel, Daniel L. J. Thorek, Jingqin Luo, Yan Liu, Zekun Li, Ziping Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustrating the intuition behind the idea of the NGSE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overall design of the ISIT-RIGHT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The estimated NSR of the three considered QSPECT methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the performance of NGSE-Corr for different numbers of patients (Sec. III.B.6). As expected, the variance of the NSR estimated using NGSE-Corr decreased as the number of patients increased ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (c)-(d) show the performance of NGSE-Corr when different degrees of nonlinearity between the true and measured quantitative values were considered (Sec. III.C.2). We observe that NGSE-Corr yielded accurate estimates of NSR for slight deviations from linearity. However, as the quadratic component of the relationship became more dominant, the estimates of NSR became less accurate. A similar trend was observe… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Objective evaluation of quantitative-imaging (QI) methods based on how reliably they measure true values is important for clinical translation. Performing such evaluation with patient data is highly desirable but hindered by the lack of gold standards. To address this challenge, advancing on previous studies, we propose a no-gold-standard evaluation technique, NGSE-Corr, that objectively evaluates QI methods without true values. The technique assumes a linear stochastic relationship between true and measured values, characterized by a slope, bias, and multivariate Gaussian-distributed noise term that models correlated noise across QI methods. We derive a maximum-likelihood approach to estimate these parameters using only measured values. From the estimates, we compute noise-to-slope ratio (NSR) to rank QI methods based on precision. Numerical experiments showed that NGSE-Corr reliably estimated the NSR, accurately ranked methods, and maintained performance even when assumptions made by the technique were partially violated. We also validated NGSE-Corr in an in silico imaging trial to rank three quantitative SPECT methods for measuring regional activity uptake in patients with bone metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer treated with radium-223. NGSE-Corr correctly identified the most precise QI method and ranked the methods for 95% (95% CI, 89%-98%) and 91% (95% CI, 84%-95%) of trials, respectively, with data from 50 patients. Performance further improved with larger cohorts. With 200 patients, NGSE-Corr yielded same rankings as those obtained with true values across all trial instances. These findings demonstrate the ability of NGSE-Corr to accurately rank QI methods without gold standards and motivate clinical validation and broader applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes NGSE-Corr, a no-gold-standard evaluation technique for objectively ranking quantitative imaging (QI) methods by precision. It assumes a linear stochastic model relating true values x to measurements y via slope a, bias b, and multivariate Gaussian noise (allowing correlations across methods), derives maximum-likelihood estimates of these parameters from measured values alone, and computes a noise-to-slope ratio (NSR) for ranking. Numerical experiments indicate reliable NSR estimation and ranking even under partial assumption violations. An in silico SPECT trial with 50–200 patients shows the method correctly identifies the most precise QI method in 95% (95% CI 89–98%) of trials and produces correct rankings in 91% (95% CI 84–95%) with N=50, reaching 100% agreement with oracle rankings at N=200.

Significance. If the linear-Gaussian assumption holds sufficiently in practice, NGSE-Corr would address a major barrier to clinical translation of QI methods by enabling objective, patient-data-based ranking without gold standards. The in silico validation against known ground truth provides concrete evidence of performance within the modeled regime, and the reported robustness to partial violations is a constructive feature. The approach builds directly on prior NGSE work by incorporating correlated noise.

major comments (2)
  1. [In silico trial] In silico SPECT trial (abstract and validation results): Patient data are generated from the identical linear stochastic model y = a*x + b + multivariate Gaussian noise used by the NGSE-Corr estimator. While this confirms correct ranking when assumptions hold exactly, it leaves untested whether NSR rankings remain valid for real uptake data that may contain nonlinearities, non-Gaussian tails, or covariance structures outside the assumed model; such mismatches would directly undermine the central claim of applicability to clinical evaluation.
  2. [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments (abstract): The claim that performance is maintained under partial violations is load-bearing for robustness assertions, yet the specific violations tested (e.g., degree of nonlinearity introduced, magnitude of non-Gaussianity, or correlation mismatch) and quantitative degradation in NSR accuracy are not specified, preventing assessment of whether the method tolerates realistic clinical deviations.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The model is described only in prose; stating the explicit equation y = a*x + b + noise (with covariance matrix) would improve immediate clarity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [In silico trial] In silico SPECT trial (abstract and validation results): Patient data are generated from the identical linear stochastic model y = a*x + b + multivariate Gaussian noise used by the NGSE-Corr estimator. While this confirms correct ranking when assumptions hold exactly, it leaves untested whether NSR rankings remain valid for real uptake data that may contain nonlinearities, non-Gaussian tails, or covariance structures outside the assumed model; such mismatches would directly undermine the central claim of applicability to clinical evaluation.

    Authors: We agree that the in silico trial generates data from the exact model assumed by NGSE-Corr and therefore quantifies performance only when the modeling assumptions hold precisely. This design was chosen to enable direct comparison against known ground truth for metrics such as the reported 95% and 91% success rates. The numerical experiments section was intended to probe robustness under controlled, partial violations. We acknowledge that the in silico results do not capture all possible real-world deviations and have added an explicit limitations paragraph in the revised manuscript noting this gap and reiterating the motivation for future clinical validation studies. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments (abstract): The claim that performance is maintained under partial violations is load-bearing for robustness assertions, yet the specific violations tested (e.g., degree of nonlinearity introduced, magnitude of non-Gaussianity, or correlation mismatch) and quantitative degradation in NSR accuracy are not specified, preventing assessment of whether the method tolerates realistic clinical deviations.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the manuscript does not provide quantitative details on the exact violations (e.g., the functional form and magnitude of nonlinearity, the specific non-Gaussian distributions, or the correlation mismatch levels) or the resulting degradation in NSR estimates. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the numerical experiments section to specify these parameters and to report the corresponding changes in NSR bias, variance, and ranking accuracy for each violation level. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper assumes a linear model y = a x + b + multivariate Gaussian noise (with correlations across methods) and derives a maximum-likelihood estimator for the parameters a, b, and covariance matrix directly from the observed measurements y. NSR is then defined as a function of the fitted slope and noise parameters to produce rankings. In silico validation generates data under the same model family (or with partial violations) and compares recovered rankings to oracle rankings computed from known true values; this constitutes external benchmarking rather than reduction of the estimator or ranking to its own inputs by construction. No self-citation is load-bearing for the central derivation, no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as an independent prediction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained under the stated modeling assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption of a linear relationship with correlated Gaussian noise; no additional free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond the estimated model parameters.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Linear stochastic relationship between true and measured values with slope, bias, and multivariate Gaussian-distributed noise term modeling correlated noise across QI methods
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the modeling basis for the maximum-likelihood derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5868 in / 1229 out tokens · 34372 ms · 2026-06-30T09:02:59.760439+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Clinical utility of quantitative imaging,

    A. B. Rosenkrantz, M. Mendiratta-Lala, B. J. Bartholmai, D. Ganeshan, R. G. Abramson, K. R. Burton, J. -P. J. Yu, E. M. Scalzetti, T. E. Yankeelov, R. M. Subramaniam, and L. Lenchik, “Clinical utility of quantitative imaging,” Acad. Radiol., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 33 –49, Jan. 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    Metrology Standards for Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers,

    D. C. Sullivan, N. A. Obuchowski, L. G. Kessler, D. L. Raunig, C. Gatsonis, E. P. Huang, M. Kondratovich, L. M. McShane, A. P. Reeves, D. P. Barboriak, A. R. Guimaraes, R. L. Wahl, and For the RSNA - QIBA Metrology Working Group, “Metrology Standards for Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers,” Radiology, vol. 277, no. 3, pp. 813– 825, Dec. 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Pretreatment FDG-PET metrics in stage III non–small cell lung cancer: ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235,

    N. Ohri, F. Duan, M. Machtay, J. J. Gorelick, B. S. Snyder, A. Alavi, B. A. Siegel, D. W. Johnson, J. D. Bradley, A. DeNittis, and M. Werner- Wasik, “Pretreatment FDG-PET metrics in stage III non–small cell lung cancer: ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst., vol. 107, no. 4, p. djv004, Apr. 2015

    2015

  4. [4]

    Apparent diffusion coefficient: a quantitative parameter for in vivo tumor characterization,

    A. M. Herneth, S. Guccione, and M. Bednarski, “Apparent diffusion coefficient: a quantitative parameter for in vivo tumor characterization,” Eur. J. Radiol. , vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 208 –213, Mar. 2003

    2003

  5. [5]

    MIRD pamphlet No. 23: quantitative SPECT for patient -specific 3 -dimensional dosimetry in internal radionuclide therapy,

    Y. K. Dewaraja, E. C. Frey, G. Sgouros, A. B. Brill, P. Roberson, P. B. Zanzonico, and M. Ljungberg, “MIRD pamphlet No. 23: quantitative SPECT for patient -specific 3 -dimensional dosimetry in internal radionuclide therapy,” J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1310 –1325, Aug. 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    CT imaging of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID -19): from the qualitative to quantitative,

    X. Qi, J. Lei, Q. Yu, Y. Xi, Y. Wang, and S. Ju, “CT imaging of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID -19): from the qualitative to quantitative,” Ann. Transl. Med., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 256–256, Mar. 2020

    2019

  7. [7]

    Radiomics and its emerging role in lung cancer research, imaging biomarkers and clinical management: State of the art,

    G. Lee, H. Y. Lee, H. Park, M. L. Schiebler, E. J. R. van Beek, Y. Ohno, J. B. Seo, and A. Leung, “Radiomics and its emerging role in lung cancer research, imaging biomarkers and clinical management: State of the art,” Eur. J. Radiol., vol. 86, pp. 297–307, Jan. 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    PET -guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques,

    H. Zaidi and I. El Naqa, “PET -guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques,” Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 2165–2187, Nov. 2010. 11 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. xx, NO. x, 2026

    2010

  9. [9]

    A maximum-likelihood method to estimate a single ADC value of lesions using diffusion MRI,

    A. K. Jha, J. J. Rodríguez, and A. T. Stopeck, “A maximum-likelihood method to estimate a single ADC value of lesions using diffusion MRI,” Magn Reson Med, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 1919–1931, 2016

    1919

  10. [10]

    A review of state-of-the-art resolution improvement techniques in SPECT imaging,

    Z. Cheng, P. Chen, and J. Yan, “A review of state-of-the-art resolution improvement techniques in SPECT imaging,” EJNMMI Phys, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 9, Jan. 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    A review on low -dose emission tomography post - reconstruction denoising with neural network approaches,

    A. Bousse, V. S. S. Kandarpa, K. Shi, K. Gong, J. S. Lee, C. Liu, and D. Visvikis, “A review on low -dose emission tomography post - reconstruction denoising with neural network approaches,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 333–347, Apr. 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review,

    E. Abadi, W. P. Segars, B. M. W. Tsui, P. E. Kinahan, N. Bottenus, A. F. Frangi, A. Maidment, J. Lo, and E. Samei, “Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review,” J. Med. Imag. , vol. 7, no. 04, p. 1, Apr. 2020

    2020

  13. [13]

    Objective task -based evaluation of artificial intelligence -based medical imaging methods: framework, strategies, and role of the physician,

    A. K. Jha, K. J. Myers, N. A. Obuchowski, Z. Liu, M. A. Rahman, B. Saboury, A. Rahmim, and B. A. Siegel, “Objective task -based evaluation of artificial intelligence -based medical imaging methods: framework, strategies, and role of the physician,” PET Clin, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 493–511, Oct. 2021

    2021

  14. [14]

    Physical imaging phantoms for simulation of tumor heterogeneity in PET, CT, and MRI: An overview of existing designs,

    A. Valladares, T. Beyer, and I. Rausch, “Physical imaging phantoms for simulation of tumor heterogeneity in PET, CT, and MRI: An overview of existing designs,” Med. Phys., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 2023 – 2037, 2020

    2023

  15. [15]

    A no-gold-standard technique for objective assessment of quantitative nuclear -medicine imaging methods,

    A. K. Jha, B. Caffo, and E. C. Frey, “A no-gold-standard technique for objective assessment of quantitative nuclear -medicine imaging methods,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 2780–2800, Apr. 2016

    2016

  16. [16]

    Objective comparison of quantitative imaging modalities without the use of a gold standard,

    J. W. Hoppin, M. A. Kupinski, G. A. Kastis, E. Clarkson, and H. H. Barrett, “Objective comparison of quantitative imaging modalities without the use of a gold standard,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging , vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 441–449, 2002

    2002

  17. [17]

    Estimation in medical imaging without a gold standard,

    M. A. Kupinski, J. W. Hoppin, E. Clarkson, H. H. Barrett, and G. A. Kastis, “Estimation in medical imaging without a gold standard,” Acad. Radiol., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 290–297, Mar. 2002

    2002

  18. [18]

    Nonsupervised ranking of different segme ntation approaches: application to the estimation of the left ventricular ejection fraction from cardiac cine MRI sequences,

    J. Lebenberg, I. Buvat, A. Lalande, P. Clarysse, C. Casta, A. Cochet, C. Constantinides, J. Cousty, A. De Cesare, S. Jehan -Besson, M. Lefort, L. Najman, E. Roullot, L. Sarry, C. Tilmant, M. Garreau, and F. Frouin, “Nonsupervised ranking of different segme ntation approaches: application to the estimation of the left ventricular ejection fraction from car...

    2012

  19. [19]

    Task -based evaluation of segmentation algorithms for diffusion-weighted MRI without using a gold standard,

    A. K. Jha, M. A. Kupinski, J. J. Rodríguez, R. M. Stephen, and A. T. Stopeck, “Task -based evaluation of segmentation algorithms for diffusion-weighted MRI without using a gold standard,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 57, no. 13, pp. 4425–4446, Jul. 2012

    2012

  20. [20]

    Practical no-gold-standard evaluation framework for quantitative imaging methods: application to lesion segmentation in positron emission tomography,

    A. K. Jha, E. Mena, B. Caffo, S. Ashrafinia, A. Rahmim, E. Frey, and R. M. Subramaniam, “Practical no-gold-standard evaluation framework for quantitative imaging methods: application to lesion segmentation in positron emission tomography,” J. Med. Imag, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 011011, Mar. 2017

    2017

  21. [21]

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

    Z. Liu, Z. Li, J. C. Mhlanga, B. A. Siegel, and A. K. Jha, “No -gold- standard evaluation of quantitative imaging methods in the presence of correlated noise,” in Medical Imaging 2022: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 2022, p. 24

    2022

  22. [22]

    No -gold- standard evaluation of quantitative SPECT methods for alpha -particle radiopharmaceutical therapy,

    Y. Liu, Z. Liu, Z. Li, D. Thorek, B. Siegel, and A. Jha, “No -gold- standard evaluation of quantitative SPECT methods for alpha -particle radiopharmaceutical therapy,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine , vol. 64, pp. P1331–P1331, Jun. 2023

    2023

  23. [23]

    Objective task-based evaluation of quantitative medical imaging methods: emerging frameworks and future directions,

    Y. Liu, H. Xia, N. A. Obuchowski, R. Laforest, A. Rahmim, B. A. Siegel, and A. K. Jha, “Objective task-based evaluation of quantitative medical imaging methods: emerging frameworks and future directions,” PET Clin., Aug. 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Development of Targeted Alpha Particle Therapy for Solid Tumors,

    N. K. Tafreshi, M. L. Doligalski, C. J. Tichacek, D. N. Pandya, M. M. Budzevich, G. El -Haddad, N. I. Khushalani, E. G. Moros, M. L. McLaughlin, T. J. Wadas, and D. L. Morse, “Development of Targeted Alpha Particle Therapy for Solid Tumors,” Molecules, vol. 24, no. 23, p. 4314, Jan. 2019

    2019

  25. [25]

    A projection -domain low-count quantitative SPECT method for ɑ-particle-emitting radiopharmaceutical therapy,

    Z. Li, N. Benabdallah, D. S. Abou, B. C. Baumann, F. Dehdashti, D. H. Ballard, J. Liu, U. Jammalamadaka, R. L. Laforest, R. L. Wahl, D. L. J. Thorek, and A. K. Jha, “A projection -domain low-count quantitative SPECT method for ɑ-particle-emitting radiopharmaceutical therapy,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 62 –74, Jan. 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Quantitative Imaging for Targeted Radionuclide Therapy Dosimetry - Technical Review,

    T. Li, E. C. I. Ao, B. Lambert, B. Brans, S. Vandenberghe, and G. S. P. Mok, “Quantitative Imaging for Targeted Radionuclide Therapy Dosimetry - Technical Review,” Theranostics, vol. 7, no. 18, pp. 4551– 4565, Oct. 2017

    2017

  27. [27]

    From Diagnosis to Therapy: Progress in SPECT and PET Reconstruction for Theranostics

    K. Enninful, F. Ahmed, B. Girod, R. Laforest, D. L. J. Thorek, V. Prasad, and A. K. Jha, “From Diagnosis to Therapy: Progress in SPECT and PET Reconstruction for Theranostics.” arXiv, 09-Sep-2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Analysis of observer performance in known-location tasks for tomographic image reconstruction,

    A. Yendiki and J. A. Fessler, “Analysis of observer performance in known-location tasks for tomographic image reconstruction,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 28–41, Jan. 2006

    2006

  29. [29]

    An Interior Point Algorithm for Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming,

    R. H. Byrd, M. E. Hribar, and J. Nocedal, “An Interior Point Algorithm for Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 877–900, Jan. 1999

    1999

  30. [30]

    C. D. Meyer, Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    Z. Li, N. Benabdallah, J. Luo, R. L. Wahl, D. L. J. Thorek, and A. K. Jha, “ISIT -QA: In silico imaging trial to evaluate a low -count quantitative SPECT method across multiple scanner –collimator configurations for 223Ra -based radiopharmaceutical therapies, ” J. Nucl. Med., vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 810–817, May 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Realistic CT simulation using the 4D XCAT phantom: Realistic CT simulation using the 4D XCAT phantom,

    W. P. Segars, M. Mahesh, T. J. Beck, E. C. Frey, and B. M. W. Tsui, “Realistic CT simulation using the 4D XCAT phantom: Realistic CT simulation using the 4D XCAT phantom,” Med. Phys., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 3800–3808, Jul. 2008

    2008

  33. [33]

    Demographics Data Component, NHANES 2013 –2014: DEMO_H

    National Center for Health Statistics, “Demographics Data Component, NHANES 2013 –2014: DEMO_H.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    2013

  34. [34]

    Revision of the NIST Standard for 223Ra: New Measurements and Review of 2008 Data,

    B. E. Zimmerman, D. E. Bergeron, J. T. Cessna, R. Fitzgerald, and L. Pibida, “Revision of the NIST Standard for 223Ra: New Measurements and Review of 2008 Data,” J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., vol. 120, pp. 37–57, Mar. 2015

    2008

  35. [35]

    Ljungberg, S.-E

    M. Ljungberg, S.-E. Strand, and M. A. King, Monte Carlo calculations in nuclear medicine: Applications in diagnostic imaging. CRC Press, 2012

    2012

  36. [36]

    Ra-223 SPECT for semi-quantitative analysis in comparison with Tc -99m HMDP SPECT: phantom study and initial clini cal experience,

    Y. Owaki, T. Nakahara, T. Kosaka, J. Fukada, A. Kumabe, A. Ichimura, M. Murakami, K. Nakajima, M. Fukushi, K. Inoue, M. Oya, and M. Jinzaki, “Ra-223 SPECT for semi-quantitative analysis in comparison with Tc -99m HMDP SPECT: phantom study and initial clini cal experience,” EJNMMI Res, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 81, Oct. 2017

    2017

  37. [37]

    CASToR: a generic data organization and processing code framework for multi -modal and multi-dimensional tomographic reconstruction,

    T. Merlin, S. Stute, D. Benoit, J. Bert, T. Carlier, C. Comtat, M. Filipovic, F. Lamare, and D. Visvikis, “CASToR: a generic data organization and processing code framework for multi -modal and multi-dimensional tomographic reconstruction,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 63, no. 18, p. 185005, Sep. 2018

    2018

  38. [38]

    Compton Scatter Compensation Using the Triple -Energy Window Method for Single- and Dual-Isotope SPECT,

    T. Ichihara, K. Ogawa, N. Motomura, A. Kubo, and S. Hashimoto, “Compton Scatter Compensation Using the Triple -Energy Window Method for Single- and Dual-Isotope SPECT,” J. Nucl. Med., vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 2216–2221, Dec. 1993

    1993

  39. [39]

    Partial volume effect in SPECT & PET imaging and impact on radionuclide dosimetry estimates,

    H. Marquis, K. Willowson, and D. Bailey, “Partial volume effect in SPECT & PET imaging and impact on radionuclide dosimetry estimates,” Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 44–54, 2023

    2023

  40. [40]

    A PET reconstruction formulation that enforces non -negativity in projection space for bias reduction in Y-90 imaging,

    H. Lim, Y. K. Dewaraja, and J. A. Fessler, “A PET reconstruction formulation that enforces non -negativity in projection space for bias reduction in Y-90 imaging,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 63, no. 3, p. 035042, Feb. 2018

    2018

  41. [41]

    Comparing cardiac ejection fraction estimation algorithms without a gold standard,

    M. A. Kupinski, J. W. Hoppin, J. Krasnow, S. Dahlberg, J. A. Leppo, M. A. King, E. Clarkson, and H. H. Barrett, “Comparing cardiac ejection fraction estimation algorithms without a gold standard,” Acad. Radiol., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 329–337, Mar. 2006

    2006

  42. [42]

    H. H. Barrett and K. J. Myers, Foundations of Image Science . John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  43. [43]

    Need for Objective Task-Based Evaluation of Image Segmentation Algorithms for Quantitative PET: A Study with ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235 Multicenter Clinical Trial Data,

    Z. Liu, J. C. Mhlanga, H. Xia, B. A. Siegel, and A. K. Jha, “Need for Objective Task-Based Evaluation of Image Segmentation Algorithms for Quantitative PET: A Study with ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235 Multicenter Clinical Trial Data,” J. Nucl. Med., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 485– 492, Mar. 2024

    2024

  44. [44]

    How accurately can quantitative imaging methods be ranked without ground truth: an upper bound on no -gold- standard evaluation,

    Y. Liu and A. K. Jha, “How accurately can quantitative imaging methods be ranked without ground truth: an upper bound on no -gold- standard evaluation,” in Medical Imaging 2024: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 2024, p. 35

    2024

  45. [45]

    Incorporating prior information in a no-gold- standard technique to assess quantitative SPECT reconstruction methods,

    A. K. Jha and E. C. Frey, “Incorporating prior information in a no-gold- standard technique to assess quantitative SPECT reconstruction methods,” in International Meeting on Fully 3D reconstruction in Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2015

    2015