Back

MR-Guided PET Denoising and Resolution Enhancement Improves Visual Interpretation and Preserves Quantitative Behavior Across Amyloid Tracers

Szujewski, C.; Shepherd, T. M.; Ghesani, M.; Ponisio, M.; Lavely, W.; Schramm, G.; Bollack, A.; Ades-aron, B.; Lemberskiy, G.

2026-05-19 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.05.14.26353149 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Amyloid-beta PET provides critical biomarker data for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis and anti-amyloid therapy evaluation, yet low spatial resolution and partial volume effects result in decreased interpretability, particularly in cases with low or borderline cortical amyloid burden. While quantitative metrics (SUVr, Centiloid) aid in interpretation of amyloid burden, disagreement between visual reads and quantitative burden does occur, further blurring the line between positive or negative scans. We evaluated whether a vendor-neutral MR-guided PET denoising and resolution enhancement method (MRG) that uses Bowsher regularization improves image interpretability and reader performance while preserving established quantitative biomarkers across multiple amyloid tracers, leading to increased concordance among visual reads and quantitative metrics. Methods: Standard (STN) and MRG PET images were compared for four tracers ([18F]AV-45 ([18F]florbetapir, FBP), [18F]florbetaben (FBB), [18F]flutemetamol (FMM), and [11C]Pittsburgh compound-B (PiB) collectively from 24 MRI and 33 PET scanners. Quantitative equivalence was assessed by comparing Standardized Uptake Value ratio (SUVr) and Centiloid scores. In three of the four tracers (FBP, FBB, FMM), visual-quantitative concordance (AUC) and reader performance were evaluated in a blinded multi-reader study by four highly experienced brain PET readers who assessed image quality, artifact severity, reader confidence, and binary amyloid positivity. Results: Across all tracers, MRG preserved quantitative SUVr and Centiloid metrics relative to STN (R2 >0.90 for all tracers) without introducing bias to the SUVr metric. Concordance between visual reads and quantitative burden measures significantly improved with MRG. In the multi-reader study, MRG resulted in significantly higher image quality, lower artifact burden, and greater reader confidence compared to STN (p < 0.0001). Reader accuracy increased from 0.89 to 0.94, and the false-negative rate decreased from 0.08 to 0.04. Crucially, improvements in reader confidence, accuracy, and the reduction in false negative reads were most pronounced in cases with low amyloid burden near the threshold of visual positivity. Conclusions: MRG denoising and resolution enhancement improved perceived image quality, reader confidence, and accuracy for amyloid PET while preserving standard quantitative behavior across tracers. By improving cortical definition in visually challenging low-burden cases without disrupting established SUVr/Centiloid behavior, MRG may reduce visual-quantitative discordance and support more confident amyloid PET interpretation near the threshold of positivity.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.2%
2
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.2%
3
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.9%
4
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
5
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 23%
4.9%
7
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.3%
8
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
9
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
52 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.7%
10
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
11
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
12
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
14
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
15
Neurobiology of Aging
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
16
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
17
Annals of Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
19
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
20
Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
21
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
22
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.3%
23
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
24
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
25
Neurology
44 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
26
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
27
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
29
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
30
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%