No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Objective assessment of image quality and dose reduction in CT iterative reconstruction
2. H. H. Barrett and K. J. Myers, Foundations of Image Science (Wiley, New York, 2004).
8. K. Boedeker and M. McNitt-Gray, “Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: Part II. Noise power spectra and signal to noise,” Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 4047–4061 (2007).
9. K. J. Myers, H. H. Barrett, M. C. Borgstrom, D. D. Patton, and G. W. Seeley, “Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 1752–1759 (1985).
11. S. Richard, D. Husarik, G. Yadava, S. Murphy, and E. Samei, “Towards task-based assessment of CT performance: System and object MTF across different reconstruction algorithms,” Med. Phys. 39, 4115–4122 (2012).
12. A. Pineda, D. Tward, A. Gonzalez, and J. Siewerdsen, “Beyond noise power in 3D computed tomography: The local NPS and off-diagonal elements of the Fourier domain covariance matrix,” Med. Phys. 39, 3240–3252 (2012).
13. J. Evans, D. Politte, B. Whiting, J. O'Sullivan, and J. Williamson, “Noise-resolution tradeoffs in x-ray CT imaging: A comparison of penalized alternating minimization and filtered backprojection algorithms,” Med. Phys. 38, 1444–1458 (2011).
14. C. C. Brunner, S. F. Abboud, C. Hoeschen, and I. S. Kyprianou, “Signal detection and location-dependent noise in cone-beam computed tomography using the spatial definition of the Hotelling SNR,” Med. Phys. 39, 3214–3228 (2012).
15. G. J. Gang, J. Lee, J. W. Stayman, D. J. Tward, W. Zbijewski, J. L. Prince, and J. H. Siewerdsen, “Analysis of Fourier-domain task-based detectability index in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT in relation to human observer performance,” Med. Phys. 38, 1754–1768 (2011).
16. A. Hara, R. Paden, A. Silva, J. Kujak, H. Lawder, and W. Pavlicek, “Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: Feasibility study,” Am. J. Roentgenol. 193, 764–771 (2009).
17. F. A. Miéville, F. Gudinchet, F. Brunelle, F. O. Bochud, and F. R. Verdun, “Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: Physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments–A phantom approach,” Phys. Med. 29, 99–110 (2013).
18. K. Boedeker and M. McNitt-Gray, “Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: Part I. Measurement of noise power spectra and noise equivalent quanta,” Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 4027–4046 (2007).
19. I. Hernandez-Girón, J. Geleijns, A. Calzado, and W. J. H. Veldkamp, “Automated assessment of low contrast sensitivity for CT systems using a model observer,” Med. Phys. 38, S25–S35 (2011).
21. L. Yu, S. Leng, L. Chen, J. M. Kofler, R. E. Carter, and C. H. McCollough, “Prediction of human observer performance in a 2-alternative forced choice low-contrast detection task using channelized Hotelling observer: Impact of radiation dose and reconstruction algorithms,” Med. Phys. 40, 041908 (9pp.) (2013).
22. L. M. Popescu and K. J. Myers, “CT image assessment by low contrast signal detectability evaluation with unknown signal location,” Med. Phys. 40, 111908 (10pp.) (2013).
23. J. Fan, H.-W. Tseng, M. Kupinski, G. Cao, P. Sainath, and J. Hsieh, “Study of the radiation dose reduction capability of a CT reconstruction algorithm LCD performance assessment using mathematical model observers,” in Medical Imaging 2013: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, edited by C. K. Abbey and C. R. Mello-Thoms [Proc. SPIE 8673, 86731Q (2013)].
24. D. M. Green and J. A. Swets, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Wiley, New York, 1966) [reprint (Krieger, New York, 1974)].
28. R. G. Swensson, “Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images,” Med. Phys. 23, 1709–1725 (1996).
29. S. Leng, L. Yu, Y. Zhang, R. Carter, A. Y. Toledano, and C. H. McCollough, “Correlation between model observer and human observer performance in CT imaging when lesion location is uncertain,” Med. Phys. 40, 081908 (9pp.) (2013).
30. S. Leng et al., “Diagnostic performance assessment of an iterative reconstruction algorithm using a model observer: Correlation with human observers for a low contrast detection task with unknown lesion locations,” Radiological Society of North America SSE23-04, 13019225, 2013.
31. L. M. Popescu, “Nonparametric signal detectability evaluation using an exponential transformation of the FROC curve,” Med. Phys. 38, 5690–5702 (2011).
32. A. E. Burgess, “Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods,” Med. Phys. 22, 643–655 (1995).
33. C. E. Metz, “Fundamental ROC analysis,” in Handbook of Medical Imaging. Vol 1: Physics and Psychophysics, edited by J. Beutel, H. L. Kundel, and R. L. Van Metter (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2000), pp. 751–769.
34. M. P. Eckstein, C. K. Abbey, and F. O. Bochud, “Practical guide to model observers for visual detection in synthetic and natural noisy images,” in Handbook of Medical Imaging. Volume 1. Physics and Psychophysics, edited by J. Beutel, H. L. Kundel, and R. L. Van Metter (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2000), pp. 629–654.
35. C. K. Abbey and F. Bochud, “Modeling visual detection tasks in correlated image noise with linear model observers,” in Handbook of Medical Imaging. Volume 1. Physics and Psychophysics (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2000), pp. 629–654.
37. H. H. Barrett, J. Yao, J. P. Rolland, and K. J. Myers, “Model observers for assessment of image quality,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90, 9758–9765 (1993).
38. C. K. Abbey and F. O. Bochud, “Modeling visual detection tasks in correlated noise with linear model observers,” in Handbook of Medical Imaging. Vol 1: Physics and Psychophysics, edited by J. Beutel, H. L. Kundel, and R. L. Van Metter (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2000), pp. 629–654.
40. H. H. Barrett, C. K. Abbey, B. D. Gallas, and M. P. Eckstein, “Stabilized estimates of Hotelling-observer detection performance inpatient-structured noise,” Proc. SPIE 3340, 27–43 (1998).
41. C. K. Abbey and H. H. Barrett, “Human and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: Effects of regularization and object variability,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 473–488 (2001).
42. A. Chawla, “Correlation imaging for improved cancer detection,” Ph.D. thesis, Duke University, 2008.
43. A. Yendiki and J. Fessler, “Analysis of observer performance in known-location tasks for tomographic image reconstruction,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 25, 28–41 (2006).
44. A. Yendiki and J. Fessler, “Analysis of observer performance in unknown-location tasks for tomographic image reconstruction,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 24, B99–B109 (2007).
45. E. Sidky, S. LaRoque, and X. Pan, “Accurate computation of the Hotelling observer for the evaluation of image reconstruction algorithms in helical, cone-beam CT,” Nucl. Sci. Symp. Conf. Rec. 5, 3233–3236 (2007).
48. A. E. Burgess, “Statistically defined backgrounds: Performance of a modified non-prewhitening matched filter model,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 1237–1242 (1994).
50. M. Whitaker, E. Clarkson, and H. Barrett, “Estimating random signal parameters from noisy images with nuisance parameters: Linear and scanning-linear methods,” Opt. Express 16, 8150–8173 (2008).
53. N. Petrick, B. Sahiner, S. G. Armato III, A. Bert, L. Correale, S. Delsanto, M. T. Freedman, D. Fryd, D. Gur, L. Hadjiiski, Z. Huo, Y. Jiang, L. Morra, S. Paquerault, V. Raykar, F. Samuelson, R. M. Summers, G. Tourassi, H. Yoshida, B. Zheng, C. Zhou, and H.-P. Chan, “Evaluation of computer-aided detection and diagnosis systems,” Med. Phys. 40, 087001 (17pp.) (2013).
55. X. He
and B. D. Gallas
, “iMRMC, analyzing and sizing multi-reader multi-case ROC trials
(available URL: http://js.cx/~xin/index.html
56. S. Leng, L. Yu, L. Chen, J. C. R. Giraldo, and C. H. McCollough, “Correlation between model observer and human observer performance in CT imaging when lesion location is uncertain,” Proc. SPIE 8313, Medical Imaging 2012: Physics of Medical Imaging, 83131M (24 February 2012).
Article metrics loading...
Iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms have the potential to reduce radiation dose in CT diagnostic imaging. As these algorithms become available on the market, a standardizable method of quantifying the dose reduction that a particular IR method can achieve would be valuable. Such a method would assist manufacturers in making promotional claims about dose reduction, buyers in comparing different devices, physicists in independently validating the claims, and the United States Food and Drug Administration in regulating the labeling of CT devices. However, the nonlinear nature of commercially available IR algorithms poses challenges to objectively assessing image quality, a necessary step in establishing the amount of dose reduction that a given IR algorithm can achieve without compromising that image quality. This review paper seeks to consolidate information relevant to objectively assessing the quality of CT IR images, and thereby measuring the level of dose reduction that a given IR algorithm can achieve.
The authors discuss task-based methods for assessing the quality of CT IR images and evaluating dose reduction.
The authors explain and review recent literature on signal detection and localization tasks in CT IR image quality assessment, the design of an appropriate phantom for these tasks, possible choices of observers (including human and model observers), and methods of evaluating observer performance.
Standardizing the measurement of dose reduction is a problem of broad interest to the CT community and to public health. A necessary step in the process is the objective assessment of CT image quality, for which various task-based methods may be suitable. This paper attempts to consolidate recent literature that is relevant to the development and implementation of task-based methods for the assessment of CT IR image quality.
Full text loading...
Most read this month