Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportPhysics, Instrumentation & Data Sciences

Controlling the false positive rate for lp-ntPET: A correction to goodness of fit metrics for ''effective'' number of parameters

Heather Liu and Evan Morris
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2019, 60 (supplement 1) 580;
Heather Liu
3Radiology and Biomedical Imaging Yale University New Haven CT United States
1Biomedical Engineering Yale University New Haven CT United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evan Morris
2Psychiatry Yale University New Haven CT United States
1Biomedical Engineering Yale University New Haven CT United States
3Radiology and Biomedical Imaging Yale University New Haven CT United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

580

Objectives: Linear parametric neurotransmitter PET1 (lp-ntPET) is a novel kinetic model that uses discrete basis functions to estimate the temporal characteristics of neurotransmitter (NT) release. The model contains seven total parameters: three describing tracer delivery—identical to the multilinear reference tissue model2 (MRTM)—and four implicitly describing NT release through basis functions. Goodness of fit (GOF) metrics evaluate the significance of improvement in a fit caused by including the NT variables, over MRTM alone. These metrics expect precise knowledge of the number of parameters in lp-ntPET. However, the basis function implementation means that NT parameters cannot take on all values (do not span the entire parameter space). We assert that proper use of GOF metrics must be formulated using an ‘effective number of parameters’. We hypothesize that the effective number of parameters increases with number of basis functions. Here, we investigated how the size of the basis function library and measurement noise affected model selection. We also used model selection metrics to determine the “effective” number of parameters in a complex model for a stipulated false positive rate (FPR).

Methods: We performed null simulations of PET data using the MRTM model (mean values: R1=1, k2=0.42 min-1, BP=3), which included no NT effects during the scan. We applied varying levels of measurement noise within the scan, ranging from noiseless to voxel-level. 10,000 time-activity curves (TACs) were simulated for each noise level, with 10% population variance in kinetic parameters across scans. All TACs were fitted with MRTM and lp-ntPET using 4 different basis function libraries containing 1, 12, 84, and 396 curves, respectively. Because all data were generated by MRTM, any significant improvement in fit by lp-ntPET must be overfitting. An F-statistic was computed from each pair of fits, assuming 7 full parameters in lp-ntPET. We compared the 95th percentile F-statistic from all TACs to the theoretical Fcritical threshold for p<0.05, assuming 7 full parameters. We determined FPR from the Fcritical threshold, for each noise level and size of basis function library. To determine the “effective” number of parameters, we solved for plpntPET iteratively from the formulas for the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) such that lp-ntPET was selected as the superior model 5% of the time (FPR=5%). Mathematically: ∑[GOF(WSSRMRTM, n, pMRTM) - GOF(WSSRlpntPET, n, plpntPET) ≥ 0] ÷10000 = 0.05 — where GOF is BIC or AIC; WSSR is weighted sum of squared residuals produced by a fit; n is number of frames; p is (effective) number of parameters in a model.

Results: The FPR calculated from F-values ranged from 7-31%, increasing with noise and number of bases. The 95th percentile of calculated F-values was consistently greater than the Fcritical threshold (p<0.05) assuming 7 lp-ntPET parameters (Fig. A). For both AIC and BIC, the “effective” number of parameters increased with more noise and more basis functions (Fig. B). Discussion: When fitting null data, we expect a 5% FPR if the Fcritical threshold is set at p<0.05; that is: lp-ntPET should emerge as the superior model by chance for 5% of fitted curves. Our finding of a consistently higher FPR suggests the need for a more stringent threshold when using the F-test with lp-ntPET. Further, we demonstrate that in order to properly use GOF metrics as a means of model selection, one must determine the “effective” number of parameters, which may not simply be equal to the number of parameters in the model. For models using a basis function implementation, the number of bases must be considered as well as the noise. Our results caution against naïve application of model selection criteria when considering models implemented with discrete numbers of basis functions.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 60, Issue supplement 1
May 1, 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Controlling the false positive rate for lp-ntPET: A correction to goodness of fit metrics for ''effective'' number of parameters
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Controlling the false positive rate for lp-ntPET: A correction to goodness of fit metrics for ''effective'' number of parameters
Heather Liu, Evan Morris
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2019, 60 (supplement 1) 580;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Controlling the false positive rate for lp-ntPET: A correction to goodness of fit metrics for ''effective'' number of parameters
Heather Liu, Evan Morris
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2019, 60 (supplement 1) 580;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Physics, Instrumentation & Data Sciences

  • 3D Structural Convolutional Sparse Coding for PET Image Reconstruction
  • Exploration of Multi-objective Optimization with Genetic Algorithms for PET Image Reconstruction
  • AI-based methods for nuclear-medicine imaging: Need for objective task-specific evaluation
Show more Physics, Instrumentation & Data Sciences

Brain Imaging (Data Management)

  • Residual Simplified Reference Tissue Model
  • BLAzER: A versatile and efficient workflow for analyzing PET/MR neuroimaging data in Alzheimer's disease
  • Voxel-wise estimation of nondisplaceable binding (VND) for PET SV2A synaptic density imaging with 11C-UCB-J
Show more Brain Imaging (Data Management)

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire