Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of Image Quality for 7 Iterative Reconstruction Algorithms in Chest Computed Tomography Imaging: A Phantom Study.
Jensen, Kristin; Hagemo, Guro; Tingberg, Anders; Steinfeldt-Reisse, Claudius; Mynarek, Georg Karl; Rivero, Rodriguez Jezabel; Fosse, Erik; Martinsen, Anne Catrine.
Afiliação
  • Hagemo G; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radiumhospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
  • Tingberg A; Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
  • Steinfeldt-Reisse C; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital.
  • Mynarek GK; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital.
  • Rivero RJ; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ullevål, Oslo University Hospital.
J Comput Assist Tomogr ; 44(5): 673-680, 2020.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32936576
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the image quality of 7 iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms in comparison to filtered back-projection (FBP) algorithm. METHODS: An anthropomorphic chest phantom was scanned on 4 computed tomography scanners and reconstructed with FBP and IR algorithms. Image quality of anatomical details-large/medium-sized pulmonary vessels, small pulmonary vessels, thoracic wall, and small and large lesions-was scored. Furthermore, general impression of noise, image contrast, and artifacts were evaluated. Visual grading regression was used to analyze the data. Standard deviations were measured, and the noise power spectrum was calculated. RESULTS: Iterative reconstruction algorithms showed significantly better results when compared with FBP for these criteria (regression coefficients/P values in parentheses): vessels (FIRST: -1.8/0.05, AIDR Enhanced: <-2.3/0.01, Veo: <-0.1/0.03, ADMIRE: <-2.1/0.04), lesions (FIRST: <-2.6/0.01, AIDR Enhanced: <-1.9/0.03, IMR1: <-2.7/0.01, Veo: <-2.4/0.02, ADMIRE: -2.3/0.02), image noise (FIRST: <-3.2/0.004, AIDR Enhanced: <-3.5/0.002, IMR1: <-6.1/0.001, iDose: <-2.3/0.02, Veo: <-3.4/0.002, ADMIRE: <-3.5/0.02), image contrast (FIRST: -2.3/0.01, AIDR Enhanced: -2.5/0.01, IMR1: -3.7/0.001, iDose: -2.1/0.02), and artifacts (FIRST: <-3.8/0.004, AIDR Enhanced: <-2.7/0.02, IMR1: <-2.6/0.02, iDose: -2.1/0.04, Veo: -2.6/0.02). The iDose algorithm was the only IR algorithm that maintained the noise frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: Iterative reconstruction algorithms performed differently on all evaluated criteria, showing the importance of careful implementation of algorithms for diagnostic purposes.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Processamento de Imagem Assistida por Computador / Radiografia Torácica / Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X / Imagens de Fantasmas Idioma: En Revista: J Comput Assist Tomogr Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Processamento de Imagem Assistida por Computador / Radiografia Torácica / Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X / Imagens de Fantasmas Idioma: En Revista: J Comput Assist Tomogr Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Estados Unidos