Back

Deep Learning Frame Prediction for Abbreviated Low-Dose Dynamic PET Protocols on the PennPET Explorer

Courtens, J.; Muller, F. M.; Li, E. J.; Vanhove, C.; Vandenberghe, S.; Pantel, A. R.; Karp, J. S.; Daube-Witherspoon, M. E.

2026-08-31 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.08.25.26361357 medRxiv
Show abstract

Dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) with long axial field-of-view (LAFOV) scanners enables multi-organ imaging and kinetic quantification beyond static (late-phase) imaging; however, the long times typically required for dynamic acquisitions remain clinically impractical. This study evaluates a deep learning (DL) framework to enable abbreviated dynamic PET acquisitions, comparing single-time-window (STW, early dynamic data only) and dual-time-window (DTW, early dynamic data plus a late 5-min static frame) protocols with early dynamic scan durations of 5-30 min and dose levels ranging from 360 MBq to 18 MBq. Seventeen 60-min dynamic [18F]FDG datasets were first motion-corrected using a staggered FALCON pipeline and then used to train and test a spatiotemporal DL model for autoregressive frame prediction. Performance was assessed across the full quantitative workflow, from DL-predicted frames and time-activity curves to organ-based kinetic modeling and voxel-wise parametric imaging in multiple tissues and two patient cohorts. DTW protocols consistently outperformed STW, better preserving late-phase kinetics. For a 15-min early dynamic scan, adding a late 5-min scan reduced mean absolute Ki difference from 23% (STW) to 17% (DTW) in the liver and from 26% to 15% in the thalamus. DTW + DL further reduced errors to [≤]10% in the liver, thalamus, and breast lesion, and 16% in muscle. Our recommended protocol, 15-min early dynamic scan plus a 5-min late scan with DL, remained robust to up to a 5-fold dose reduction (~74 MBq). Overall, these findings support DL-enabled abbreviated, low-dose dynamic LAFOV PET as a clinically feasible approach for accurate kinetic quantification

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.