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

Table 3. Comparison of SD value of background tissue between reconstructed images and real images using 17%PET images as input.

Group Liver Lung Aorta Lumbar spine
3D Unet-30s 0.19 (0.15, 0.24)* 0.06 (0.05, 0.09) 0.12 (0.10, 0.14)* 0.26 (0.20, 0.43)
P2P-30s 0.28 (0.25, 0.33)* 0.10 (0.07, 0.13)* 0.16 (0.13, 0.20) 0.29 (0.22, 0.37)
17%PET 0.45 (0.38, 0.67) 0.12 (0.11, 0.16) 0.35 (0.25, 0.42) 0.66 (0.45, 0.90)
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 29.46 25.18 32.96 19.93
P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

The italic font represents a statistical difference between this value and that of the 17%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.