# Unmixing dynamic PET images with variable specific binding kinetics

Source: [Unmixing dynamic PET images with variable specific binding kinetics](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/68fa36e51e209131ce8adb5b>)

Collection index: [llms.txt](<https://www.sota2.com/research/llms.txt>)

Data updated: 2025-10-24T22:05:23.116Z

Authors: Yanna Cruz Cavalcanti, Thomas Oberlin, Nicolas Dobigeon, Simon Stute, Maria Ribeiro, Clovis Tauber

Published: 2017-07-19T12:17:57.000Z

## Abstract

To analyze dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) images, various generic multivariate data analysis techniques have been considered in the literature, such as principal component analysis (PCA), independent component analysis (ICA), factor analysis and nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF). Nevertheless, these conventional approaches neglect any possible nonlinear variations in the time activity curves describing the kinetic behavior of tissues with specific binding, which limits their ability to recover a reliable, understandable and interpretable description of the data. This paper proposes an alternative analysis paradigm that accounts for spatial fluctuations in the exchange rate of the tracer between a free compartment and a specifically bound ligand compartment. The method relies on the concept of linear unmixing, usually applied on the hyperspectral domain, which combines NMF with a sum-to-one constraint that ensures an exhaustive description of the mixtures. The spatial variability of the signature corresponding to the specific binding tissue is explicitly modeled through a perturbed component. The performance of the method is assessed on both synthetic and real data and is shown to compete favorably when compared to other conventional analysis methods. The proposed method improved both factor estimation and proportions extraction for specific binding. Modeling the variability of the specific binding factor has a strong potential impact for dynamic PET image analysis.

## Recorded benchmark results

A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage.

## Original sources and implementation

[Original paper](<https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.09867>)

[PDF](<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.09867.pdf>)