Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Structure-Guided MR-to-CT Synthesis with Spatial and Semantic Alignments for Attenuation Correction of Whole-Body PET/MR Imaging

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that whole-body MR-to-CT synthesis for PET/MR attenuation correction becomes substantially more accurate when the generator is trained with explicit spatial registration and organ-level contrastive learning alongside…

desk verdict Solid applied MR-to-CT synthesis paper, but the claimed edge over CycleGAN is mostly supervised alignment, and the evaluation reference is ambiguous. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17488 v1 pith:XP76JJRH submitted 2024-11-26 eess.IV cs.CV

Jiaxu Zheng , Zhenrong Shen , Lichi Zhang , Qun Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords MR-to-CTsynthesisPET/MRimagingattenuationcorrectionimageregistrationcontrastivelearningwhole-bodysyntheticCTstructure-guidedattention
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Whole-body PET/MR scanners need an attenuation map for accurate PET quantification, but MR images carry no direct tissue-density information. The paper tries to establish that a synthetic CT computed from water-fat MR images can serve as that attenuation map, provided the synthesis is trained with explicit spatial and semantic alignment rather than unpaired translation alone. It proposes a three-module framework: a structure-guided synthesis network, a registration module that aligns paired CT ground truth to the MR before supervision, and a contrastive module that keeps the same organs semantically close in synthetic and real CT. On a 50-subject test set the framework reports whole-body PSNR 21.71 dB versus 19.16 dB for the best baseline, and PET SUV differences with lower mean and standard deviation in spine and femur than a segmentation-based UTE method. If these results hold, the approach offers a direct route to more reliable MR-based attenuation correction in clinical whole-body PET/MR imaging.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the joint training of the synthesis network, the registration network, and the contrastive feature space. The generator is a 3D U-Net with two decoders, one for the CT image and one for its edge map, and structure-guided attention gates that gate encoder features by edge-decoder features at each scale, suppressing unwanted soft-tissue contours. The registration network estimates a deformation field between paired MR and CT, with a mutual-information neural estimator as the similarity term, weighted by inverse tissue-volume ratios, and a smoothness term that skips the thoracic-cavity boundary so rib motion is not over-smoothed. The semantic stream uses a fixed pre-trained organ segmenter to define positive and negative pairs and an InfoNCE-style contrastive loss across synthetic and aligned CT features. The key identity is that the aligned CT, not the raw paired CT, becomes the ground truth for both the reconstruction loss and the contrastive pairs, converting a spatially misaligned problem into one with explicit supervision.

What would settle it

Run the same region-wise PSNR, SSIM, and PET SUV-difference evaluation on an independent multi-center whole-body PET/MR dataset with paired CT: if the framework's whole-body PSNR advantage over the strongest unpaired-translation baseline disappears, or if its spine and femur SUV errors are not lower than the segmentation-based UTE method, the claimed superiority is refuted. A more targeted check is to corrupt or remove the organ-segmentation masks during training; if the framework's gain over the no-semantic-alignment ablation vanishes, the semantic-alignment claim is the operative cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the two obstacles to whole-body MR-to-CT synthesis—spatial misalignment between paired scans and the complex, many-tissue MR-to-CT intensity mapping—can be attacked simultaneously by making registration and semantics explicit parts of the training loop. Rather than relying only on adversarial or cycle-consistency losses, the generator is supervised by a CT volume that has been deformably registered to the MR scan; that registration is tissue-aware, sampling voxels inversely to sub-region volume, and respiration-aware, excluding the thoracic-cavity slip boundary from smoothness regularization. A second stream extracts organ-level feature vectors from a pre-trained multi-organ segmentation network and applies a contrastive loss so that matching organs in synthetic and real CT move together while different organs separate. The paper's evidence is that each added module improves PSNR and SSIM, with the full framework producing the highest scores in every reported organ region, and that PET images reconstructed with the synthetic attenuation maps show smaller SUV errors than the UTE segmentation baseline and a structure-constrained unpaired-translation baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline assumes the pre-trained whole-body organ segmenter produces reliable organ masks on both real CT and synthetic CT; if those masks are wrong, the tissue weights in registration and the positive and negative pairs in contrastive learning are noisy, and the paper itself notes that occasional poor segmentation can compromise contrastive learning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Whole-body MR-based attenuation correction can move from discrete tissue classes to continuous synthetic CT values, reducing the bone-related SUV underestimation seen in segmentation-based UTE methods.
  • Training MR-to-CT synthesis with explicitly registered paired data gives direct voxel-level supervision, anchoring synthetic images to true anatomy instead of relying only on adversarial or cycle consistency.
  • Adding organ-level contrastive supervision removes artifacts that purely structural constraints cannot prevent, particularly in ribs and abdominal soft tissue.
  • The tissue-aware and respiration-aware registration losses provide a template for handling whole-body deformation, including the discontinuous rib-liver sliding that uniform smoothness regularization would over-smooth.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the contrastive semantic alignment could be made self-supervised by using features of the aligned CT itself or by gating the contrastive pairs with segmentation confidence, which would remove the paper's stated dependence on high-quality organ masks.
  • Editorial inference: the same registration-plus-semantics recipe likely transfers to other misaligned cross-modality synthesis tasks, such as MR-to-dose or CBCT-to-CT, because sliding organs and organ-specific intensity mapping are not unique to whole-body PET/MR.
  • Editorial inference: a direct test of the semantic module would be to measure segmentation Dice between synthetic CT and real aligned CT; if synthetic organs segment poorly, the contrastive pairs are learning from noisy labels and the robustness gains would shrink as segmentation quality drops.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a whole-body MR-to-CT synthesis framework for PET attenuation correction, composed of three modules: a Structure-Guided Synthesis network with gated U-Net and attention gates, a Spatial Alignment module that registers paired CT to MR using a tissue-aware MINE-based similarity loss and a respiration-aware smoothness regularization, and a Semantic Alignment module that applies contrastive learning on MOOSE-derived organ features. The method is evaluated on a 350-subject multi-center dataset against CycleGAN variants and a segmentation-based attenuation correction approach, reporting PSNR/SSIM and SUV differences. The authors also provide an ablation study showing monotonic gains when adding each module.

Significance. The work addresses a clinically important problem and the three-module design is clearly motivated by two real challenges in whole-body synthesis: misalignment and complex intensity mapping. The use of a large multi-center dataset and the downstream PET attenuation correction evaluation are strengths. The ablation is internally consistent and each proposed component contributes positively in the reported experiments. However, the main comparative claim—that the framework outperforms existing methods—is currently not fully established because the evaluation reference is ambiguous, the comparison to CycleGAN baselines is not controlled for access to aligned supervision, and no statistical significance testing is provided. Given these issues, the technical contribution is promising but needs additional validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-B.1, Table I, Eq. (2)] The paper never states whether the PSNR/SSIM values in Table I are computed against the original CT volume I^CT_in or the SpatAlign-aligned volume I^CT_align. This is load-bearing because Eq. (2) trains the synthesis network against I^CT_align, and the comparison in Table I is against unpaired CycleGAN baselines that never see this aligned target. If the evaluation uses I^CT_align as the reference, the baselines are systematically penalized by residual spatial misalignment, making the comparison unfair; if it uses I^CT_in, then the proposed method is explicitly optimized toward a target that differs from the reference, and the metric conflates synthesis quality with registration. The evaluation reference must be stated explicitly, and the main comparison should include a controlled supervised baseline that also receives the aligned supervision (e.g., the vanilla U-Net from Table II) in Table I itself, not only in the ablation.
  2. [Tables I and III] All quality metrics and SUV differences are reported as point estimates without per-subject standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Since the dataset has 50 test subjects, paired comparisons are possible, and claims such as 'significantly lower standard deviations' (Section IV-C) require statistical support. Without error bars, the differences between the full method (PSNR 21.71) and the vanilla baseline (20.96) in Table II, and the differences against CycleGAN baselines in Table I, could be within subject variability. Please provide mean±SD over test subjects and pairwise tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) for each metric and region.
  3. [III-B.1, III-C, and V] The tissue-aware weight map in SpatAlign and the positive/negative pairs in SemAlign rely on MOOSE segmentation masks applied to synthetic and aligned CT images, but the manuscript does not quantify segmentation accuracy on these images, which are 128×128×128 with 2 mm spacing and include synthetic CT data outside the training distribution of MOOSE. The Discussion (Section V) concedes that 'occasional poor segmentation outcomes can compromise the efficacy of contrastive learning,' yet no sensitivity analysis or failure statistics are reported. If MOOSE masks are unreliable on synthetic CT, both the MINE sampling weights and the InfoNCE loss in Eq. (9) are driven by noisy labels, and the advertised contribution of SemAlign is not robustly demonstrated. Please report native MOOSE accuracy on the aligned CT (e.g., Dice against manual labels on a subset) and on synthetic CT during training, or provide an ablation that degrades mask quality.
  4. [III-B.1] The definition of the tissue weight map is not reproducible as written: 'define its initial weight as the reciprocal of its volume ratio P6 i=1 Vi / Vi' is dimensionally inconsistent and should presumably read 1/(V_i/Σ_j V_j). The authors also do not report the sensitivity of the registration to the number of sampled voxel pairs n=100,000 or to the choice of the six sub-regions. These details are needed to support the SpatAlign component.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3] The caption enumerates columns (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (h) but omits (g); please correct the enumeration to match the displayed panels.
  2. [Section III-B] The phrase 'multi-layer perception' should be 'multi-layer perceptron'.
  3. [Table I and Table II] The full model is reported with spine PSNR 15.9 in Table I and 15.90 in Table II; please be consistent with decimal places.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The synthesis objective sums three loss terms without weighting coefficients; please specify the relative weights used in training, since the adversarial loss and reconstruction losses are on very different scales.
  5. [Section IV-C] The 'SUV difference' metric is not defined; please state whether it is the mean signed difference, mean absolute difference, or a percentage difference, and specify the PET reconstruction settings.
  6. [Section III-A] The Canny edge detector thresholds for computing E^CT_gt are not given; please add them for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the synthesis target is a registered external CT, registration is frozen before synthesis training, and the cited components (MOOSE, VoxelMorph, MINE, InfoNCE) are external or standard.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The synthesis network G is trained with Eq. (2) against I_CT_gt, which is I_CT_align produced by the registration network R from the paired CT (Section III-A); R is trained first and then frozen before G is trained (Section IV-A.2), so there is no feedback loop in which G's output defines its own target. SpatAlign's losses (Eqs. 5-8) use mutual-information estimation, smoothness penalties, and tissue weights from an external pre-trained segmenter (MOOSE), none of which are defined in terms of the final PSNR/SSIM claim. SemAlign's contrastive loss (Eq. 9) uses features of real aligned CT and synthetic CT, again supervised by external segmenter outputs, not by the evaluation metric. The paper explicitly acknowledges the main limitation (dependence on MOOSE segmentation quality), which further indicates the key premise is an external model, not a self-defined truth. The only concern is that the evaluation reference for Table I is not explicitly stated; if it were the same I_CT_align used in Eq. (2), that would be an evaluation-fairness confound for the baselines, but it would not make the derivation circular, since I_CT_align is still derived from measured CT, not from G. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the learnability of MR-CT intensity mapping, the ability of deformable registration to fix residual misalignment, and the reliability of a pre-trained MOOSE segmenter on synthetic CT. No new physical entities are introduced; the main free parameters are implementation choices such as loss weights, the voxel-pair sample count, and the tissue weight map.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of sampled voxel pairs n for MINE = 100,000
    Empirically set in Section III-B.1; affects MI estimation stability and training cost.
  • Tissue sub-region weight map = inverse volume ratios, normalized over six sub-regions
    Design choice for the tissue-aware MI loss in Section III-B.1; not fitted to data but chosen ad hoc from segmentation volumes.
  • Synthesis loss weight coefficients = not reported; each term in Eq. (4) appears with unit weight
    Weights on reconstruction, edge, and adversarial losses are not reported, leaving an unstated balancing choice that can affect results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MR and CT image intensities are related by a learnable mapping sufficient for synthesis
    The whole task presupposes this; central to all MR-to-CT synthesis.
  • domain assumption Deformable registration can correct whole-body spatial misalignment between paired MR and CT after affine and B-spline preprocessing
    Section III-B assumes residual misalignment is recoverable by a learned deformation field.
  • domain assumption MOOSE, a pre-trained multi-organ segmenter, generalizes to synthetic CT images and aligned real CT images
    SemAlign and tissue weights rely on MOOSE segmentation; the paper acknowledges occasional poor segmentation outcomes in Section V.
  • standard math MINE provides a differentiable lower bound to mutual information sufficient for registration
    Eq. (6) invokes the MINE bound and relies on a function space F with integrability constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper Excluding the thoracic cavity boundary from smoothness regularization models respiratory sliding motion
    Respiration-aware Lsmooth in Eq. (8) is a modeling choice specific to this paper, not derived from measured motion data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure-Guided MR-to-CT Synthesis with Spatial and Semantic Alignments for Attenuation Correction of Whole-Body PET/MR Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XP76JJRH

@misc{pith2026241117488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure-Guided MR-to-CT Synthesis with Spatial and Semantic Alignments for Attenuation Correction of Whole-Body PET/MR Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XP76JJRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17488}
}
read the original abstract

Deep-learning-based MR-to-CT synthesis can estimate the electron density of tissues, thereby facilitating PET attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MR imaging. However, whole-body MR-to-CT synthesis faces several challenges including the issue of spatial misalignment and the complexity of intensity mapping, primarily due to the variety of tissues and organs throughout the whole body. Here we propose a novel whole-body MR-to-CT synthesis framework, which consists of three novel modules to tackle these challenges: (1) Structure-Guided Synthesis module leverages structure-guided attention gates to enhance synthetic image quality by diminishing unnecessary contours of soft tissues; (2) Spatial Alignment module yields precise registration between paired MR and CT images by taking into account the impacts of tissue volumes and respiratory movements, thus providing well-aligned ground-truth CT images during training; (3) Semantic Alignment module utilizes contrastive learning to constrain organ-related semantic information, thereby ensuring the semantic authenticity of synthetic CT images.We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate that the proposed whole-body MR-to-CT framework can produce visually plausible and semantically realistic CT images, and validate its utility in PET attenuation correction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17488 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed whole-body MR-to-CT synthesis framework. (a) Structure-Guided Synthesis (SGSyn) translates the input WFI-IP & WFI-OP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of the synthesis network from Structure-Guided Synthesis (SGSyn). The network consists of one shared image encoder and two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison between the proposed method and other MR-to-CT synthesis models. The columns from left to right include (a) the input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results from ablation study of key designs in three modules: (1) the gated U-Net design in SGSyn; (2) the tissue-aware image similarity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The SUV difference maps of reconstructed PET images using different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The respiration-aware smoothness regularization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Integrated pet/mr,

    H. H. Quick, “Integrated pet/mr,” Journal of magnetic resonance imag- ing, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 243–258, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Pet-mri: a review of challenges and solutions in the development of integrated multimodality imaging,

    S. Vandenberghe and P. K. Marsden, “Pet-mri: a review of challenges and solutions in the development of integrated multimodality imaging,” Physics in Medicine & Biology , vol. 60, no. 4, p. R115, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Attenuation correction in pet using single photon transmission measurement,

    R. A. Dekemp and C. Nahmias, “Attenuation correction in pet using single photon transmission measurement,” Medical physics , vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 771–778, 1994

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Attenuation correction for a combined 3d pet/ct scanner,

    P. E. Kinahan, D. Townsend, T. Beyer, and D. Sashin, “Attenuation correction for a combined 3d pet/ct scanner,” Medical physics, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 2046–2053, 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    A multi-centre evaluation of eleven clinically feasible brain pet/mri attenuation correction techniques using a large cohort of pa- tients,

    C. N. Ladefoged, I. Law, U. Anazodo, K. S. Lawrence, D. Izquierdo- Garcia, C. Catana, N. Burgos, M. J. Cardoso, S. Ourselin, B. Hutton et al. , “A multi-centre evaluation of eleven clinically feasible brain pet/mri attenuation correction techniques using a large cohort of pa- tients,” Neuroimage, vol. 147, pp. 346–359, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Magnetic resonance imaging-guided attenuation and scatter corrections in three-dimensional brain positron emission tomography,

    H. Zaidi, M.-L. Montandon, and D. O. Slosman, “Magnetic resonance imaging-guided attenuation and scatter corrections in three-dimensional brain positron emission tomography,” Medical physics , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 937–948, 2003

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Towards quanti- tative pet/mri: a review of mr-based attenuation correction techniques,

    M. Hofmann, B. Pichler, B. Sch ¨olkopf, and T. Beyer, “Towards quanti- tative pet/mri: a review of mr-based attenuation correction techniques,” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging , vol. 36, pp. 93–104, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Mri-based attenuation correction for whole-body pet/mri: quantitative evaluation of segmentation-and atlas- based methods,

    M. Hofmann, I. Bezrukov, F. Mantlik, P. Aschoff, F. Steinke, T. Beyer, B. J. Pichler, and B. Sch ¨olkopf, “Mri-based attenuation correction for whole-body pet/mri: quantitative evaluation of segmentation-and atlas- based methods,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine , vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1392– 1399, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Attenuation correction methods suitable for brain imaging with a pet/mri scanner: a comparison of tissue atlas and template attenuation map approaches,

    I. B. Malone, R. E. Ansorge, G. B. Williams, P. J. Nestor, T. A. Carpenter, and T. D. Fryer, “Attenuation correction methods suitable for brain imaging with a pet/mri scanner: a comparison of tissue atlas and template attenuation map approaches,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, v...

    2011

  2. [10]

    Toward implementing an mri-based pet attenuation-correction method for neurologic studies on the mr-pet brain prototype,

    C. Catana, A. van der Kouwe, T. Benner, C. J. Michel, M. Hamm, M. Fenchel, B. Fischl, B. Rosen, M. Schmand, and A. G. Sorensen, “Toward implementing an mri-based pet attenuation-correction method for neurologic studies on the mr-pet brain prototype,” Journal of nuclear medicin...

    2010

  3. [11]

    Mri-based attenuation correction for pet/mri using ultrashort echo time sequences,

    V . Keereman, Y . Fierens, T. Broux, Y . De Deene, M. Lonneux, and S. Vandenberghe, “Mri-based attenuation correction for pet/mri using ultrashort echo time sequences,” Journal of nuclear medicine , vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 812–818, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Medical image synthesis with context-aware generative adver- sarial networks,

    D. Nie, R. Trullo, J. Lian, C. Petitjean, S. Ruan, Q. Wang, and D. Shen, “Medical image synthesis with context-aware generative adver- sarial networks,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention- MICCAI 2017: 20th International Conference, Quebec City, QC, ...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Deep embedding convolutional neural network for synthesizing ct image from t1-weighted mr image,

    L. Xiang, Q. Wang, D. Nie, L. Zhang, X. Jin, Y . Qiao, and D. Shen, “Deep embedding convolutional neural network for synthesizing ct image from t1-weighted mr image,” Medical image analysis , vol. 47, pp. 31–44, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Synthetic ct generation from non-attenuation corrected pet images for whole-body pet imaging,

    X. Dong, T. Wang, Y . Lei, K. Higgins, T. Liu, W. J. Curran, H. Mao, J. A. Nye, and X. Yang, “Synthetic ct generation from non-attenuation corrected pet images for whole-body pet imaging,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol. 64, no. 21, p. 215016, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Un- paired mr to ct synthesis with explicit structural constrained adversarial learning,

    Y . Ge, D. Wei, Z. Xue, Q. Wang, X. Zhou, Y . Zhan, and S. Liao, “Un- paired mr to ct synthesis with explicit structural constrained adversarial learning,” in 2019 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2019) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1096–1099

    2019

  8. [16]

    Unsupervised mr-to-ct synthesis using structure-constrained cyclegan,

    H. Yang, J. Sun, A. Carass, C. Zhao, J. Lee, J. L. Prince, and Z. Xu, “Unsupervised mr-to-ct synthesis using structure-constrained cyclegan,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 4249–4261, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Cross-modality image synthesis from unpaired data using cyclegan: Effects of gradient consistency loss and training data size,

    Y . Hiasa, Y . Otake, M. Takao, T. Matsuoka, K. Takashima, A. Carass, J. L. Prince, N. Sugano, and Y . Sato, “Cross-modality image synthesis from unpaired data using cyclegan: Effects of gradient consistency loss and training data size,” in Simulation and Synthesis in Medical ...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks,

    J.-Y . Zhu, T. Park, P. Isola, and A. A. Efros, “Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2017, pp. 2223–2232

    2017

  11. [19]

    Current commercial techniques for mri-guided attenuation correction are insufficient and will limit the wider acceptance of pet/mri technology in the clinic,

    C. Catana, H. H. Quick, and H. Zaidi, “Current commercial techniques for mri-guided attenuation correction are insufficient and will limit the wider acceptance of pet/mri technology in the clinic,” Medical physics, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 4007–4010, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    A review of pet attenuation correction methods for pet-mr,

    G. Krokos, J. MacKewn, J. Dunn, and P. Marsden, “A review of pet attenuation correction methods for pet-mr,” EJNMMI physics , vol. 10, no. 1, p. 52, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Attenuation correction for brain pet imaging using deep neural network based on 10 dixon and zte mr images,

    K. Gong, J. Yang, K. Kim, G. El Fakhri, Y . Seo, and Q. Li, “Attenuation correction for brain pet imaging using deep neural network based on 10 dixon and zte mr images,” Physics in Medicine & Biology , vol. 63, no. 12, p. 125011, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Applications of artificial intelligence and deep learning in molecular imaging and radiotherapy,

    H. Arabi and H. Zaidi, “Applications of artificial intelligence and deep learning in molecular imaging and radiotherapy,” European Journal of Hybrid Imaging, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 17, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Learning ct-free attenuation-corrected total- body pet images through deep learning,

    W. Li, Z. Huang, Z. Chen, Y . Jiang, C. Zhou, X. Zhang, W. Fan, Y . Zhao, L. Zhang, L. Wan et al. , “Learning ct-free attenuation-corrected total- body pet images through deep learning,” European Radiology, pp. 1–10, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    A deep learning-based whole-body solution for pet/mri attenuation correction,

    S. Ahangari, A. Beck Olin, M. Kingg ˚ard Federspiel, B. Jakoby, T. L. Andersen, A. E. Hansen, B. M. Fischer, and F. Littrup Andersen, “A deep learning-based whole-body solution for pet/mri attenuation correction,” EJNMMI physics, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 55, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    M. E. Lindemann, M. Gratz, H. Grafe, K. Jannusch, L. Umutlu, and H. H. Quick, “Systematic evaluation of human soft tissue attenuation correction in whole-body pet/mr: Implications from pet/ct for opti- mization of mr-based ac in patients with normal lung tissue,” Medical Physi...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Whole- body pet/mr imaging: quantitative evaluation of a novel model-based mr attenuation correction method including bone,

    D. H. Paulus, H. H. Quick, C. Geppert, M. Fenchel, Y . Zhan, G. Her- mosillo, D. Faul, F. Boada, K. P. Friedman, and T. Koesters, “Whole- body pet/mr imaging: quantitative evaluation of a novel model-based mr attenuation correction method including bone,” Journal of Nuclear Me...

    2015

  19. [27]

    One registration multi-atlas-based pseudo-ct generation for attenuation correction in pet/mri,

    H. Arabi and H. Zaidi, “One registration multi-atlas-based pseudo-ct generation for attenuation correction in pet/mri,” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, vol. 43, pp. 2021–2035, 2016

    2021

  20. [28]

    Mr-based truncation and attenuation correction in integrated pet/mr hybrid imaging using huge with continuous table motion,

    M. E. Lindemann, M. Oehmigen, J. O. Blumhagen, M. Gratz, and H. H. Quick, “Mr-based truncation and attenuation correction in integrated pet/mr hybrid imaging using huge with continuous table motion,” Medical Physics, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 4559–4572, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Pet/mri attenuation estimation in the lung: a review of past, present, and potential techniques,

    J. Lillington, L. Brusaferri, K. Kl ¨aser, K. Shmueli, R. Neji, B. F. Hutton, F. Fraioli, S. Arridge, M. J. Cardoso, S. Ourselin et al., “Pet/mri attenuation estimation in the lung: a review of past, present, and potential techniques,” Medical physics, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 790–...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Comparison of pre-and post-contrast-enhanced attenuation cor- rection using a caipi-accelerated t1-weighted dixon 3d-vibe sequence in 68ga-dotatoc pet/mri,

    N. M. Bruckmann, M. E. Lindemann, J. Grueneisen, H. Grafe, Y . Li, L. M. Sawicki, C. Rischpler, K. Herrmann, L. Umutlu, H. H. Quick et al. , “Comparison of pre-and post-contrast-enhanced attenuation cor- rection using a caipi-accelerated t1-weighted dixon 3d-vibe sequence in 6...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Attention-aware discrimi- nation for mr-to-ct image translation using cycle-consistent generative adversarial networks,

    V . Kearney, B. P. Ziemer, A. Perry, T. Wang, J. W. Chan, L. Ma, O. Morin, S. S. Yom, and T. D. Solberg, “Attention-aware discrimi- nation for mr-to-ct image translation using cycle-consistent generative adversarial networks,” Radiology: Artificial Intelligence , vol. 2, no. 2...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Grad-cam guided u-net for mri-based pseudo-ct synthesis,

    G. Dovletov, D. D. Pham, S. L ¨orcks, J. Pauli, M. Gratz, and H. H. Quick, “Grad-cam guided u-net for mri-based pseudo-ct synthesis,” in 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 2071–2075

    2022

  25. [33]

    Fine-grained medical image synthesis with dual- attention adversarial learning,

    Q. Xiao and D. Nie, “Fine-grained medical image synthesis with dual- attention adversarial learning,” in Annual Conference on Medical Image Understanding and Analysis . Springer, 2024, pp. 298–306

    2024

  26. [34]

    Attention-guided gen- erative adversarial network to address atypical anatomy in synthetic ct generation,

    H. Emami, M. Dong, and C. K. Glide-Hurst, “Attention-guided gen- erative adversarial network to address atypical anatomy in synthetic ct generation,” in 2020 IEEE 21st international conference on information reuse and integration for data science (IRI) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 188–193

    2020

  27. [35]

    Frequency-supervised mr- to-ct image synthesis,

    Z. Shi, P. Mettes, G. Zheng, and C. Snoek, “Frequency-supervised mr- to-ct image synthesis,” in Deep Generative Models, and Data Augmen- tation, Labelling, and Imperfections: First Workshop, DGM4MICCAI 2021, and First Workshop, DALI 2021, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2021, ...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Improving generalization in mr-to-ct synthesis in radiotherapy by using an augmented cycle generative adversarial network with unpaired data,

    K. N. Brou Boni, J. Klein, A. Gulyban, N. Reynaert, and D. Pasquier, “Improving generalization in mr-to-ct synthesis in radiotherapy by using an augmented cycle generative adversarial network with unpaired data,” Medical physics, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 3003–3010, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Icycle-gan: Improved cycle generative adversarial networks for liver medical image generation,

    Y . Chen, H. Lin, W. Zhang, W. Chen, Z. Zhou, A. A. Heidari, H. Chen, and G. Xu, “Icycle-gan: Improved cycle generative adversarial networks for liver medical image generation,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 92, p. 106100, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ddmm-synth: A denoising diffusion model for cross-modal medical image synthesis with sparse- view measurement embedding,

    X. Li, K. Shang, G. Wang, and M. D. Butala, “Ddmm-synth: A denoising diffusion model for cross-modal medical image synthesis with sparse- view measurement embedding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15770, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Unsupervised medical image translation with adversarial diffusion models,

    M. Ozbey, O. Dalmaz, S. U. Dar, H. A. Bedel, S. Ozturk, A. Gungor, and T. Cukur, “Unsupervised medical image translation with adversarial diffusion models,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Synthetic ct generation from mri using 3d transformer-based denoising diffusion model,

    S. Pan, E. Abouei, J. Wynne, C.-W. Chang, T. Wang, R. L. Qiu, Y . Li, J. Peng, J. Roper, P. Patel et al. , “Synthetic ct generation from mri using 3d transformer-based denoising diffusion model,” Medical Physics, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 2538–2548, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III

    2015

  34. [42]

    Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  35. [43]

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,

    P. Isola, J.-Y . Zhu, T. Zhou, and A. A. Efros, “Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 1125– 1134

    2017

  36. [44]

    Generative adversarial nets,

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “Generative adversarial nets,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 27, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    V oxelmorph: a learning framework for deformable medical image registration,

    G. Balakrishnan, A. Zhao, M. R. Sabuncu, J. Guttag, and A. V . Dalca, “V oxelmorph: a learning framework for deformable medical image registration,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1788–1800, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Multi-modal volume registration by maximization of mutual informa- tion,

    W. M. Wells III, P. Viola, H. Atsumi, S. Nakajima, and R. Kikinis, “Multi-modal volume registration by maximization of mutual informa- tion,” Medical image analysis , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35–51, 1996

    1996

  39. [47]

    Deformable medical image registration: A survey,

    A. Sotiras, C. Davatzikos, and N. Paragios, “Deformable medical image registration: A survey,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1153–1190, 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    Mutual information neural estimation,

    M. I. Belghazi, A. Baratin, S. Rajeshwar, S. Ozair, Y . Bengio, A. Courville, and D. Hjelm, “Mutual information neural estimation,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2018, pp. 531–540

    2018

  41. [49]

    Mutual information neural estimation for unsupervised multi-modal registration of brain images,

    G. Snaauw, M. Sasdelli, G. Maicas, S. Lau, J. Verjans, M. Jenkinson, and G. Carneiro, “Mutual information neural estimation for unsupervised multi-modal registration of brain images,” in 2022 44th Annual Inter- national Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology ...

    2022

  42. [50]

    Fully automated, semantic segmentation of whole-body 18f-fdg pet/ct images based on data-centric artificial intelligence,

    L. K. S. Sundar, J. Yu, O. Muzik, O. C. Kulterer, B. Fueger, D. Kifjak, T. Nakuz, H. M. Shin, A. K. Sima, D. Kitzmantlet al., “Fully automated, semantic segmentation of whole-body 18f-fdg pet/ct images based on data-centric artificial intelligence,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine...

    1941

  43. [51]

    nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation,

    F. Isensee, P. F. Jaeger, S. A. Kohl, J. Petersen, and K. H. Maier-Hein, “nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation,” Nature methods, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 203–211, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning,

    K. He, H. Fan, Y . Wu, S. Xie, and R. Girshick, “Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 9729–9738

    2020

  45. [53]

    N4itk: improved n3 bias correction,

    N. J. Tustison, B. B. Avants, P. A. Cook, Y . Zheng, A. Egan, P. A. Yushkevich, and J. C. Gee, “N4itk: improved n3 bias correction,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1310–1320, 2010

    2010

  46. [54]

    Elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration,

    S. Klein, M. Staring, K. Murphy, M. A. Viergever, and J. P. Pluim, “Elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 196–205, 2009

    2009

  47. [55]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga et al. , “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.