On estimating the variance of smoothed MLEM images

The maximum-likelihood expectation-maximization (MLEM) algorithm is being used increasingly as a routine reconstruction algorithm in positron emission tomography (PET). After a finite number of iterations, the response of the MLEM-reconstruction algorithm is non-linear and not shift-invariant. As a result, two problems occur when MLEM is used for tracer kinetic modeling. First, resolution and recovery may be different for different positions and for different time frames, adversely affecting the modeling results. Second, it is not trivial to determine appropriate weights for weighted least squares fitting to image derived time-activity curves. The first problem can be remedied by applying a "relatively high" number of iterations, followed by smoothing with a shift invariant kernel. The smoothing kernel reduces the noise and imposes an (approximately) constant resolution. For the second problem, different approaches exist. Some authors have shown that the variance of pixel values in MLEM images is proportional to the mean of the pixel value. Others have suggested that the uncertainty about a reconstructed pixel value can be estimated from the Fisher information matrix. These two approaches produce different results. Our simulation study confirms that the pixel variances of unsmoothed MLEM images are approximately proportional to the pixel values. However, smoothing reduces the variance more in high count regions than in low count regions. As a result, the variances of smoothed MLEM pixel values correlate better with the reciprocal of the diagonal elements of the Fisher information matrix. Smoothing strongly affects the variance because neighboring pixel values are highly correlated. Because computing the mean of a region is a smoothing operation, the Fisher information can be used to compute appropriate weight values for model based analysis of time-activity curves.

[1]  Jeffrey A. Fessler Mean and variance of implicitly defined biased estimators (such as penalized maximum likelihood): applications to tomography , 1996, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[2]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Spatial resolution properties of penalized-likelihood image reconstruction: space-invariant tomographs , 1996, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[3]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Regularization for uniform spatial resolution properties in penalized-likelihood image reconstruction , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  Donald W. Wilson,et al.  Noise properties of the EM algorithm. I. Theory , 1994 .

[5]  Charles L. Byrne,et al.  Noise characterization of block-iterative reconstruction algorithms. I. Theory , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[6]  Charles L. Byrne,et al.  Convergent block-iterative algorithms for image reconstruction from inconsistent data , 1997, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[7]  R. Huesman A new fast algorithm for the evaluation of regions of interest and statistical uncertainty in computed tomography. , 1984, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  B. Tsui,et al.  Noise properties of the EM algorithm: II. Monte Carlo simulations. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  A theoretical study of the contrast recovery and variance of MAP reconstructions from PET data , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality. II. Fisher information, Fourier crosstalk, and figures of merit for task performance. , 1995, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[11]  Claude Comtat,et al.  Effects of attenuation correction on tumor detection in PET oncology , 2000 .

[12]  Patrick Dupont,et al.  A dedicated ML-algorithm for non-attenuation corrected PET whole body images , 2000, 2000 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (Cat. No.00CH37149).

[13]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[14]  L. Shepp,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.