SU‐E‐I‐83: Evaluation of Penalizing Functions in Compressed Sensing to Recover Undersampled Data in PET Imaging

Purpose: Previously we proposed the use of compressed sensing (CS) techniques to recover partially sampled data in PET imaging (Valiollahzadeh et al IEEE MIC 2012). Here we compare the effect of various penalizing functions on the accuracy of the recovered activity concentration (AC) in PET imagesMe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical Physics 2013-06, Vol.40 (6), p.144-144
Hauptverfasser: Valiollahzadeh, S, Clark, J, Mawlawi, O
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 144
container_issue 6
container_start_page 144
container_title Medical Physics
container_volume 40
creator Valiollahzadeh, S
Clark, J
Mawlawi, O
description Purpose: Previously we proposed the use of compressed sensing (CS) techniques to recover partially sampled data in PET imaging (Valiollahzadeh et al IEEE MIC 2012). Here we compare the effect of various penalizing functions on the accuracy of the recovered activity concentration (AC) in PET imagesMethods: The recovery of partially sampled data using CS techniques requires minimizing a cost function describing a sparse model while being subject to the constraint of a partially observed data set. In this work we define the cost function as the summation of two terms: a Poisson log likelihood function to model the noise, and a penalty term to represent the sparse model. Four sparse models were evaluated: a TV model which assumes the image has a sparse representation in the finite difference domain; a linear combination of a wavelet and TV (WT) model; a recursive dyadic partitions (RDP) model which which estimates the structure of an image; and a variant of RDP that utilizes a cyclespun translation invariant version known as RDPTI. These 4 algorithms were tested using an IEC phantom containing 6 spheres (10:1 ratio). The phantom was imaged on a D‐RX PET/CT scanner twice; once with all detectors operational (baseline) and once with 4 detector blocks at each of 0, 90, 180 and 270° turned off to create a partially sampled (PS) image. The PS image was corrected using the 4 different algorithms and the resultant images were compared to baseline by evaluating the mean AC in the spheres and background. Results: The average percent error in AC for the spheres (background) for the TV, WT, RDP and RDPI algorithms were 12.6(5.3), 4.3(5.1), 8.9(7.6), and 10.7(13)% respectively. Conclusion: WT gave the most accurate AC and the least spurious artifacts suggesting its superior performance over the other algorithms.
doi_str_mv 10.1118/1.4814194
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1118_1_4814194</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>MP4194</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1774-6f723cbd6b3435252fe8fa7f8c59f84ef92c9a8b0e1d630cfc667f2dc8694cd63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1OwzAUhC0EEqWw4AbegpTivzg2O1RSqFRERdt15Dp2FZQ4lZ22KiuOwBk5CQntFhajJ818bxYDwDVGA4yxuMMDJjDDkp2AHmEJjRhB8hT0EJIsIgzF5-AihHeEEKcx6oHNbPH9-ZW2GrcS9B6mW1VuVFPUDtYWTo1TZfFRuBUcbZzu7AALB4d1tfYmBJPDmXGhy5savhldb42HC5cbH1S1Ltv8UTWqe5mmcziu1KplL8GZVWUwV8fbB4tROh8-R5PXp_HwYRJpnCQs4jYhVC9zvqSMxiQm1girEit0LK1gxkqipRJLZHDOKdJWc55YkmvBJdOt1Qc3h17t6xC8sdnaF5Xy-wyjrNsrw9lxr5aNDuyuKM3-bzB7mR752wMfdNH87vVP-Q_Lr3si</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>SU‐E‐I‐83: Evaluation of Penalizing Functions in Compressed Sensing to Recover Undersampled Data in PET Imaging</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Valiollahzadeh, S ; Clark, J ; Mawlawi, O</creator><creatorcontrib>Valiollahzadeh, S ; Clark, J ; Mawlawi, O</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: Previously we proposed the use of compressed sensing (CS) techniques to recover partially sampled data in PET imaging (Valiollahzadeh et al IEEE MIC 2012). Here we compare the effect of various penalizing functions on the accuracy of the recovered activity concentration (AC) in PET imagesMethods: The recovery of partially sampled data using CS techniques requires minimizing a cost function describing a sparse model while being subject to the constraint of a partially observed data set. In this work we define the cost function as the summation of two terms: a Poisson log likelihood function to model the noise, and a penalty term to represent the sparse model. Four sparse models were evaluated: a TV model which assumes the image has a sparse representation in the finite difference domain; a linear combination of a wavelet and TV (WT) model; a recursive dyadic partitions (RDP) model which which estimates the structure of an image; and a variant of RDP that utilizes a cyclespun translation invariant version known as RDPTI. These 4 algorithms were tested using an IEC phantom containing 6 spheres (10:1 ratio). The phantom was imaged on a D‐RX PET/CT scanner twice; once with all detectors operational (baseline) and once with 4 detector blocks at each of 0, 90, 180 and 270° turned off to create a partially sampled (PS) image. The PS image was corrected using the 4 different algorithms and the resultant images were compared to baseline by evaluating the mean AC in the spheres and background. Results: The average percent error in AC for the spheres (background) for the TV, WT, RDP and RDPI algorithms were 12.6(5.3), 4.3(5.1), 8.9(7.6), and 10.7(13)% respectively. Conclusion: WT gave the most accurate AC and the least spurious artifacts suggesting its superior performance over the other algorithms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1118/1.4814194</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MPHYA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</publisher><subject>Biomedical modeling ; Computed tomography ; Image sensors ; Medical image noise ; Medical imaging ; Poisson's equation ; Positron emission tomography ; Wavelets</subject><ispartof>Medical Physics, 2013-06, Vol.40 (6), p.144-144</ispartof><rights>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2013 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1118%2F1.4814194$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,1411,23909,23910,25118,27901,27902,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Valiollahzadeh, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mawlawi, O</creatorcontrib><title>SU‐E‐I‐83: Evaluation of Penalizing Functions in Compressed Sensing to Recover Undersampled Data in PET Imaging</title><title>Medical Physics</title><description>Purpose: Previously we proposed the use of compressed sensing (CS) techniques to recover partially sampled data in PET imaging (Valiollahzadeh et al IEEE MIC 2012). Here we compare the effect of various penalizing functions on the accuracy of the recovered activity concentration (AC) in PET imagesMethods: The recovery of partially sampled data using CS techniques requires minimizing a cost function describing a sparse model while being subject to the constraint of a partially observed data set. In this work we define the cost function as the summation of two terms: a Poisson log likelihood function to model the noise, and a penalty term to represent the sparse model. Four sparse models were evaluated: a TV model which assumes the image has a sparse representation in the finite difference domain; a linear combination of a wavelet and TV (WT) model; a recursive dyadic partitions (RDP) model which which estimates the structure of an image; and a variant of RDP that utilizes a cyclespun translation invariant version known as RDPTI. These 4 algorithms were tested using an IEC phantom containing 6 spheres (10:1 ratio). The phantom was imaged on a D‐RX PET/CT scanner twice; once with all detectors operational (baseline) and once with 4 detector blocks at each of 0, 90, 180 and 270° turned off to create a partially sampled (PS) image. The PS image was corrected using the 4 different algorithms and the resultant images were compared to baseline by evaluating the mean AC in the spheres and background. Results: The average percent error in AC for the spheres (background) for the TV, WT, RDP and RDPI algorithms were 12.6(5.3), 4.3(5.1), 8.9(7.6), and 10.7(13)% respectively. Conclusion: WT gave the most accurate AC and the least spurious artifacts suggesting its superior performance over the other algorithms.</description><subject>Biomedical modeling</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Image sensors</subject><subject>Medical image noise</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Poisson's equation</subject><subject>Positron emission tomography</subject><subject>Wavelets</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1OwzAUhC0EEqWw4AbegpTivzg2O1RSqFRERdt15Dp2FZQ4lZ22KiuOwBk5CQntFhajJ818bxYDwDVGA4yxuMMDJjDDkp2AHmEJjRhB8hT0EJIsIgzF5-AihHeEEKcx6oHNbPH9-ZW2GrcS9B6mW1VuVFPUDtYWTo1TZfFRuBUcbZzu7AALB4d1tfYmBJPDmXGhy5savhldb42HC5cbH1S1Ltv8UTWqe5mmcziu1KplL8GZVWUwV8fbB4tROh8-R5PXp_HwYRJpnCQs4jYhVC9zvqSMxiQm1girEit0LK1gxkqipRJLZHDOKdJWc55YkmvBJdOt1Qc3h17t6xC8sdnaF5Xy-wyjrNsrw9lxr5aNDuyuKM3-bzB7mR752wMfdNH87vVP-Q_Lr3si</recordid><startdate>201306</startdate><enddate>201306</enddate><creator>Valiollahzadeh, S</creator><creator>Clark, J</creator><creator>Mawlawi, O</creator><general>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201306</creationdate><title>SU‐E‐I‐83: Evaluation of Penalizing Functions in Compressed Sensing to Recover Undersampled Data in PET Imaging</title><author>Valiollahzadeh, S ; Clark, J ; Mawlawi, O</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1774-6f723cbd6b3435252fe8fa7f8c59f84ef92c9a8b0e1d630cfc667f2dc8694cd63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Biomedical modeling</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Image sensors</topic><topic>Medical image noise</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Poisson's equation</topic><topic>Positron emission tomography</topic><topic>Wavelets</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Valiollahzadeh, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mawlawi, O</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Medical Physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Valiollahzadeh, S</au><au>Clark, J</au><au>Mawlawi, O</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>SU‐E‐I‐83: Evaluation of Penalizing Functions in Compressed Sensing to Recover Undersampled Data in PET Imaging</atitle><jtitle>Medical Physics</jtitle><date>2013-06</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>144</spage><epage>144</epage><pages>144-144</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><coden>MPHYA6</coden><abstract>Purpose: Previously we proposed the use of compressed sensing (CS) techniques to recover partially sampled data in PET imaging (Valiollahzadeh et al IEEE MIC 2012). Here we compare the effect of various penalizing functions on the accuracy of the recovered activity concentration (AC) in PET imagesMethods: The recovery of partially sampled data using CS techniques requires minimizing a cost function describing a sparse model while being subject to the constraint of a partially observed data set. In this work we define the cost function as the summation of two terms: a Poisson log likelihood function to model the noise, and a penalty term to represent the sparse model. Four sparse models were evaluated: a TV model which assumes the image has a sparse representation in the finite difference domain; a linear combination of a wavelet and TV (WT) model; a recursive dyadic partitions (RDP) model which which estimates the structure of an image; and a variant of RDP that utilizes a cyclespun translation invariant version known as RDPTI. These 4 algorithms were tested using an IEC phantom containing 6 spheres (10:1 ratio). The phantom was imaged on a D‐RX PET/CT scanner twice; once with all detectors operational (baseline) and once with 4 detector blocks at each of 0, 90, 180 and 270° turned off to create a partially sampled (PS) image. The PS image was corrected using the 4 different algorithms and the resultant images were compared to baseline by evaluating the mean AC in the spheres and background. Results: The average percent error in AC for the spheres (background) for the TV, WT, RDP and RDPI algorithms were 12.6(5.3), 4.3(5.1), 8.9(7.6), and 10.7(13)% respectively. Conclusion: WT gave the most accurate AC and the least spurious artifacts suggesting its superior performance over the other algorithms.</abstract><pub>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</pub><doi>10.1118/1.4814194</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0094-2405
ispartof Medical Physics, 2013-06, Vol.40 (6), p.144-144
issn 0094-2405
2473-4209
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1118_1_4814194
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Biomedical modeling
Computed tomography
Image sensors
Medical image noise
Medical imaging
Poisson's equation
Positron emission tomography
Wavelets
title SU‐E‐I‐83: Evaluation of Penalizing Functions in Compressed Sensing to Recover Undersampled Data in PET Imaging
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T21%3A46%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=SU%E2%80%90E%E2%80%90I%E2%80%9083:%20Evaluation%20of%20Penalizing%20Functions%20in%20Compressed%20Sensing%20to%20Recover%20Undersampled%20Data%20in%20PET%20Imaging&rft.jtitle=Medical%20Physics&rft.au=Valiollahzadeh,%20S&rft.date=2013-06&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=144&rft.epage=144&rft.pages=144-144&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft.coden=MPHYA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1118/1.4814194&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3EMP4194%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true