Skip to main content
. 2023 Apr 13;13(6):3760–3775. doi: 10.21037/qims-22-1181

Table 1. Comparison of SD value of background tissue between reconstructed images and real images using 8%PET images as input.

Group Liver Lung Aorta Lumbar spine
3D Unet-15s 0.20 (0.14, 0.28)* 0.06 (0.05, 0.10) 0.12 (0.09, 0.15)* 0.27 (0.16, 0.37)
P2P-15s 0.31 (0.23, 0.37)* 0.11 (0.09, 0.13)* 0.16 (0.15, 0.23) 0.27 (0.24, 0.34)
8%PET 0.86 (0.64, 1.06) 0.22 (0.16, 0.25) 0.55 (0.46, 0.77) 1.20 (0.75, 1.57)
s-PET 0.25 (0.19, 0.29) 0.08 (0.06, 0.09) 0.19 (0.16, 0.20) 0.27 (0.23, 0.41)
H 32.13 35.22 35.11 28.65
P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

The italic font represents a statistical difference between this value and that of the 8%PET group. And * indicates that the value is statistically significant compared with the s-PET group. SD, standard deviation; PET, positron emission tomography; s-PET, standard positron emission tomography (per bed time: 90 s); 3D Unet, a deep network model based on CNN; P2P, Pixel2Pixel deep network model based on GAN; H, H value for the Kruskal-Wallis method; CNN, convolutional neural network; GAN, generative adversarial network.