Effect of reconstruction methods and x-ray tube current–time product on nodule detection in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom: A crossed-modality JAFROC observer study
Purpose: To evaluate nodule detection in an anthropomorphic chest phantom in computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR3D) and filtered back projection (FBP) over a range of tube current–time product (mAs). Methods: Two phantoms were used in this st...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medical physics (Lancaster) 2016-03, Vol.43 (3), p.1265-1274 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1274 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 1265 |
| container_title | Medical physics (Lancaster) |
| container_volume | 43 |
| creator | Thompson, J. D. Chakraborty, D. P. Szczepura, K. Tootell, A. K. Vamvakas, I. Manning, D. J. Hogg, P. |
| description | Purpose:
To evaluate nodule detection in an anthropomorphic chest phantom in computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR3D) and filtered back projection (FBP) over a range of tube current–time product (mAs).
Methods:
Two phantoms were used in this study: (i) an anthropomorphic chest phantom was loaded with spherical simulated nodules of 5, 8, 10, and 12 mm in diameter and +100, −630, and −800 Hounsfield units electron density; this would generate CT images for the observer study; (ii) a whole-body dosimetry verification phantom was used to ultimately estimate effective dose and risk according to the model of the BEIR VII committee. Both phantoms were scanned over a mAs range (10, 20, 30, and 40), while all other acquisition parameters remained constant. Images were reconstructed with both AIDR3D and FBP. For the observer study, 34 normal cases (no nodules) and 34 abnormal cases (containing 1–3 nodules, mean 1.35 ± 0.54) were chosen. Eleven observers evaluated images from all mAs and reconstruction methods under the free-response paradigm. A crossed-modality jackknife alternative free-response operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis method was developed for data analysis, averaging data over the two factors influencing nodule detection in this study: mAs and image reconstruction (AIDR3D or FBP). A Bonferroni correction was applied and the threshold for declaring significance was set at 0.025 to maintain the overall probability of Type I error at α = 0.05. Contrast-to-noise (CNR) was also measured for all nodules and evaluated by a linear least squares analysis.
Results:
For random-reader fixed-case crossed-modality JAFROC analysis, there was no significant difference in nodule detection between AIDR3D and FBP when data were averaged over mAs [F(1, 10) = 0.08, p = 0.789]. However, when data were averaged over reconstruction methods, a significant difference was seen between multiple pairs of mAs settings [F(3, 30) = 15.96, p < 0.001]. Measurements of effective dose and effective risk showed the expected linear dependence on mAs. Nodule CNR was statistically higher for simulated nodules on images reconstructed with AIDR3D (p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
No significant difference in nodule detection performance was demonstrated between images reconstructed with FBP and AIDR3D. mAs was found to influence nodule detection, though further work is required for dose optimization. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1118/1.4941017 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1770866860</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1770866860</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5617-d08d6b3c2628c5c5d202e6f4cf976f46b41da215be9c1f7d9bba0a0435c3c7163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kt-K1DAUxoso7rp64QtIwBsVuiZNk7Z7IQzDrn9YWRG9Dmly6kTbpibp7M6d7-BT-Fo-iamtwy6i0JCS_L6v53w9SfKQ4GNCSPmcHOdVTjApbiWHWV7QNM9wdTs5xLjK0yzH7CC55_1njDGnDN9NDjJeUV4Qcpj8OG0aUAHZBjlQtvfBjSoY26MOwsZqj2Sv0VXq5A6FsQakRuegDz-_fQ-mAzQ4q8dJ36M-vrWANASYHUwfxfEJG2cH21k3bIxC0dXJKzRs4oXtTtAKKWe9B512VsvWhB16szp7f7FGtvbgtuCQD6Pe3U_uNLL18GDZj5KPZ6cf1q_S84uXr9er81QxTopU41LzmqqMZ6ViiukMZ8CbXDVVETde50TLjLAaKkWaQld1LbHEOWWKqoJwepRUs6-_hGGsxeBMJ91OWGnE1K1Yzr-YaQkPglBKGWVlFbUvZm0EOtAqBuVke9Pixk1vNuKT3Yq8YBnLWTR4PBtYH6K3MjHLTfwtfYxUZLEnXFIcqSfLZ5z9OoIPojNeQdvKHuzoBSkKXHJe8gl9OqO_Q3bQ7IshWEzDI4hYhieyj65Xvyf_TEsE0hm4NC3s_u0k3r5bDJ8tUcZG5DQTe83Wumv8oJv_wX-X-gvayu6-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1770866860</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of reconstruction methods and x-ray tube current–time product on nodule detection in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom: A crossed-modality JAFROC observer study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SWEPUB Freely available online</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Thompson, J. D. ; Chakraborty, D. P. ; Szczepura, K. ; Tootell, A. K. ; Vamvakas, I. ; Manning, D. J. ; Hogg, P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Thompson, J. D. ; Chakraborty, D. P. ; Szczepura, K. ; Tootell, A. K. ; Vamvakas, I. ; Manning, D. J. ; Hogg, P.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose:
To evaluate nodule detection in an anthropomorphic chest phantom in computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR3D) and filtered back projection (FBP) over a range of tube current–time product (mAs).
Methods:
Two phantoms were used in this study: (i) an anthropomorphic chest phantom was loaded with spherical simulated nodules of 5, 8, 10, and 12 mm in diameter and +100, −630, and −800 Hounsfield units electron density; this would generate CT images for the observer study; (ii) a whole-body dosimetry verification phantom was used to ultimately estimate effective dose and risk according to the model of the BEIR VII committee. Both phantoms were scanned over a mAs range (10, 20, 30, and 40), while all other acquisition parameters remained constant. Images were reconstructed with both AIDR3D and FBP. For the observer study, 34 normal cases (no nodules) and 34 abnormal cases (containing 1–3 nodules, mean 1.35 ± 0.54) were chosen. Eleven observers evaluated images from all mAs and reconstruction methods under the free-response paradigm. A crossed-modality jackknife alternative free-response operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis method was developed for data analysis, averaging data over the two factors influencing nodule detection in this study: mAs and image reconstruction (AIDR3D or FBP). A Bonferroni correction was applied and the threshold for declaring significance was set at 0.025 to maintain the overall probability of Type I error at α = 0.05. Contrast-to-noise (CNR) was also measured for all nodules and evaluated by a linear least squares analysis.
Results:
For random-reader fixed-case crossed-modality JAFROC analysis, there was no significant difference in nodule detection between AIDR3D and FBP when data were averaged over mAs [F(1, 10) = 0.08, p = 0.789]. However, when data were averaged over reconstruction methods, a significant difference was seen between multiple pairs of mAs settings [F(3, 30) = 15.96, p < 0.001]. Measurements of effective dose and effective risk showed the expected linear dependence on mAs. Nodule CNR was statistically higher for simulated nodules on images reconstructed with AIDR3D (p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
No significant difference in nodule detection performance was demonstrated between images reconstructed with FBP and AIDR3D. mAs was found to influence nodule detection, though further work is required for dose optimization.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1118/1.4941017</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26936711</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MPHYA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Association of Physicists in Medicine</publisher><subject>60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES ; Biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Haemocytometers ; CHEST ; CNR ; Computed tomography ; Computerised tomographs ; computerised tomography ; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY ; CORRECTIONS ; DATA ANALYSIS ; Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications ; Dose‐volume analysis ; DOSIMETRY ; effective risk ; ELECTRON DENSITY ; Humans ; Image data processing or generation, in general ; IMAGE PROCESSING ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods ; image reconstruction ; ITERATIVE METHODS ; Iterative reconstruction ; JAFROC ; LEAST SQUARE FIT ; Medical image noise ; medical image processing ; Medical image reconstruction ; Medicin och hälsovetenskap ; Observation ; PHANTOMS ; Phantoms, Imaging ; QUANTITATIVE IMAGING AND IMAGE PROCESSING ; RADIATION DOSES ; RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY ; Radiography, Thoracic - methods ; Reconstruction ; Scintigraphy ; Three dimensional image processing ; Three dimensional sensing ; Time Factors ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; X-RAY TUBES</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2016-03, Vol.43 (3), p.1265-1274</ispartof><rights>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2016 The Authors. Published by American Association of Physicists in Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5617-d08d6b3c2628c5c5d202e6f4cf976f46b41da215be9c1f7d9bba0a0435c3c7163</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5617-d08d6b3c2628c5c5d202e6f4cf976f46b41da215be9c1f7d9bba0a0435c3c7163</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1118%2F1.4941017$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1118%2F1.4941017$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,552,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26936711$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/22620830$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:133353589$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thompson, J. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chakraborty, D. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szczepura, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tootell, A. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vamvakas, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manning, D. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hogg, P.</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of reconstruction methods and x-ray tube current–time product on nodule detection in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom: A crossed-modality JAFROC observer study</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose:
To evaluate nodule detection in an anthropomorphic chest phantom in computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR3D) and filtered back projection (FBP) over a range of tube current–time product (mAs).
Methods:
Two phantoms were used in this study: (i) an anthropomorphic chest phantom was loaded with spherical simulated nodules of 5, 8, 10, and 12 mm in diameter and +100, −630, and −800 Hounsfield units electron density; this would generate CT images for the observer study; (ii) a whole-body dosimetry verification phantom was used to ultimately estimate effective dose and risk according to the model of the BEIR VII committee. Both phantoms were scanned over a mAs range (10, 20, 30, and 40), while all other acquisition parameters remained constant. Images were reconstructed with both AIDR3D and FBP. For the observer study, 34 normal cases (no nodules) and 34 abnormal cases (containing 1–3 nodules, mean 1.35 ± 0.54) were chosen. Eleven observers evaluated images from all mAs and reconstruction methods under the free-response paradigm. A crossed-modality jackknife alternative free-response operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis method was developed for data analysis, averaging data over the two factors influencing nodule detection in this study: mAs and image reconstruction (AIDR3D or FBP). A Bonferroni correction was applied and the threshold for declaring significance was set at 0.025 to maintain the overall probability of Type I error at α = 0.05. Contrast-to-noise (CNR) was also measured for all nodules and evaluated by a linear least squares analysis.
Results:
For random-reader fixed-case crossed-modality JAFROC analysis, there was no significant difference in nodule detection between AIDR3D and FBP when data were averaged over mAs [F(1, 10) = 0.08, p = 0.789]. However, when data were averaged over reconstruction methods, a significant difference was seen between multiple pairs of mAs settings [F(3, 30) = 15.96, p < 0.001]. Measurements of effective dose and effective risk showed the expected linear dependence on mAs. Nodule CNR was statistically higher for simulated nodules on images reconstructed with AIDR3D (p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
No significant difference in nodule detection performance was demonstrated between images reconstructed with FBP and AIDR3D. mAs was found to influence nodule detection, though further work is required for dose optimization.</description><subject>60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES</subject><subject>Biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Haemocytometers</subject><subject>CHEST</subject><subject>CNR</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Computerised tomographs</subject><subject>computerised tomography</subject><subject>COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY</subject><subject>CORRECTIONS</subject><subject>DATA ANALYSIS</subject><subject>Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications</subject><subject>Dose‐volume analysis</subject><subject>DOSIMETRY</subject><subject>effective risk</subject><subject>ELECTRON DENSITY</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image data processing or generation, in general</subject><subject>IMAGE PROCESSING</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>image reconstruction</subject><subject>ITERATIVE METHODS</subject><subject>Iterative reconstruction</subject><subject>JAFROC</subject><subject>LEAST SQUARE FIT</subject><subject>Medical image noise</subject><subject>medical image processing</subject><subject>Medical image reconstruction</subject><subject>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>Observation</subject><subject>PHANTOMS</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>QUANTITATIVE IMAGING AND IMAGE PROCESSING</subject><subject>RADIATION DOSES</subject><subject>RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY</subject><subject>Radiography, Thoracic - methods</subject><subject>Reconstruction</subject><subject>Scintigraphy</subject><subject>Three dimensional image processing</subject><subject>Three dimensional sensing</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>X-RAY TUBES</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>D8T</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kt-K1DAUxoso7rp64QtIwBsVuiZNk7Z7IQzDrn9YWRG9Dmly6kTbpibp7M6d7-BT-Fo-iamtwy6i0JCS_L6v53w9SfKQ4GNCSPmcHOdVTjApbiWHWV7QNM9wdTs5xLjK0yzH7CC55_1njDGnDN9NDjJeUV4Qcpj8OG0aUAHZBjlQtvfBjSoY26MOwsZqj2Sv0VXq5A6FsQakRuegDz-_fQ-mAzQ4q8dJ36M-vrWANASYHUwfxfEJG2cH21k3bIxC0dXJKzRs4oXtTtAKKWe9B512VsvWhB16szp7f7FGtvbgtuCQD6Pe3U_uNLL18GDZj5KPZ6cf1q_S84uXr9er81QxTopU41LzmqqMZ6ViiukMZ8CbXDVVETde50TLjLAaKkWaQld1LbHEOWWKqoJwepRUs6-_hGGsxeBMJ91OWGnE1K1Yzr-YaQkPglBKGWVlFbUvZm0EOtAqBuVke9Pixk1vNuKT3Yq8YBnLWTR4PBtYH6K3MjHLTfwtfYxUZLEnXFIcqSfLZ5z9OoIPojNeQdvKHuzoBSkKXHJe8gl9OqO_Q3bQ7IshWEzDI4hYhieyj65Xvyf_TEsE0hm4NC3s_u0k3r5bDJ8tUcZG5DQTe83Wumv8oJv_wX-X-gvayu6-</recordid><startdate>201603</startdate><enddate>201603</enddate><creator>Thompson, J. D.</creator><creator>Chakraborty, D. P.</creator><creator>Szczepura, K.</creator><creator>Tootell, A. K.</creator><creator>Vamvakas, I.</creator><creator>Manning, D. J.</creator><creator>Hogg, P.</creator><general>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</general><scope>AJDQP</scope><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201603</creationdate><title>Effect of reconstruction methods and x-ray tube current–time product on nodule detection in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom: A crossed-modality JAFROC observer study</title><author>Thompson, J. D. ; Chakraborty, D. P. ; Szczepura, K. ; Tootell, A. K. ; Vamvakas, I. ; Manning, D. J. ; Hogg, P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5617-d08d6b3c2628c5c5d202e6f4cf976f46b41da215be9c1f7d9bba0a0435c3c7163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES</topic><topic>Biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Haemocytometers</topic><topic>CHEST</topic><topic>CNR</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Computerised tomographs</topic><topic>computerised tomography</topic><topic>COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY</topic><topic>CORRECTIONS</topic><topic>DATA ANALYSIS</topic><topic>Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications</topic><topic>Dose‐volume analysis</topic><topic>DOSIMETRY</topic><topic>effective risk</topic><topic>ELECTRON DENSITY</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image data processing or generation, in general</topic><topic>IMAGE PROCESSING</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>image reconstruction</topic><topic>ITERATIVE METHODS</topic><topic>Iterative reconstruction</topic><topic>JAFROC</topic><topic>LEAST SQUARE FIT</topic><topic>Medical image noise</topic><topic>medical image processing</topic><topic>Medical image reconstruction</topic><topic>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>Observation</topic><topic>PHANTOMS</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>QUANTITATIVE IMAGING AND IMAGE PROCESSING</topic><topic>RADIATION DOSES</topic><topic>RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY</topic><topic>Radiography, Thoracic - methods</topic><topic>Reconstruction</topic><topic>Scintigraphy</topic><topic>Three dimensional image processing</topic><topic>Three dimensional sensing</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>X-RAY TUBES</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thompson, J. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chakraborty, D. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szczepura, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tootell, A. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vamvakas, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manning, D. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hogg, P.</creatorcontrib><collection>AIP Open Access Journals</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thompson, J. D.</au><au>Chakraborty, D. P.</au><au>Szczepura, K.</au><au>Tootell, A. K.</au><au>Vamvakas, I.</au><au>Manning, D. J.</au><au>Hogg, P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of reconstruction methods and x-ray tube current–time product on nodule detection in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom: A crossed-modality JAFROC observer study</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2016-03</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1265</spage><epage>1274</epage><pages>1265-1274</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><coden>MPHYA6</coden><abstract>Purpose:
To evaluate nodule detection in an anthropomorphic chest phantom in computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR3D) and filtered back projection (FBP) over a range of tube current–time product (mAs).
Methods:
Two phantoms were used in this study: (i) an anthropomorphic chest phantom was loaded with spherical simulated nodules of 5, 8, 10, and 12 mm in diameter and +100, −630, and −800 Hounsfield units electron density; this would generate CT images for the observer study; (ii) a whole-body dosimetry verification phantom was used to ultimately estimate effective dose and risk according to the model of the BEIR VII committee. Both phantoms were scanned over a mAs range (10, 20, 30, and 40), while all other acquisition parameters remained constant. Images were reconstructed with both AIDR3D and FBP. For the observer study, 34 normal cases (no nodules) and 34 abnormal cases (containing 1–3 nodules, mean 1.35 ± 0.54) were chosen. Eleven observers evaluated images from all mAs and reconstruction methods under the free-response paradigm. A crossed-modality jackknife alternative free-response operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis method was developed for data analysis, averaging data over the two factors influencing nodule detection in this study: mAs and image reconstruction (AIDR3D or FBP). A Bonferroni correction was applied and the threshold for declaring significance was set at 0.025 to maintain the overall probability of Type I error at α = 0.05. Contrast-to-noise (CNR) was also measured for all nodules and evaluated by a linear least squares analysis.
Results:
For random-reader fixed-case crossed-modality JAFROC analysis, there was no significant difference in nodule detection between AIDR3D and FBP when data were averaged over mAs [F(1, 10) = 0.08, p = 0.789]. However, when data were averaged over reconstruction methods, a significant difference was seen between multiple pairs of mAs settings [F(3, 30) = 15.96, p < 0.001]. Measurements of effective dose and effective risk showed the expected linear dependence on mAs. Nodule CNR was statistically higher for simulated nodules on images reconstructed with AIDR3D (p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
No significant difference in nodule detection performance was demonstrated between images reconstructed with FBP and AIDR3D. mAs was found to influence nodule detection, though further work is required for dose optimization.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</pub><pmid>26936711</pmid><doi>10.1118/1.4941017</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0094-2405 |
| ispartof | Medical physics (Lancaster), 2016-03, Vol.43 (3), p.1265-1274 |
| issn | 0094-2405 2473-4209 2473-4209 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1770866860 |
| source | MEDLINE; SWEPUB Freely available online; Access via Wiley Online Library; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES Biological material, e.g. blood, urine Haemocytometers CHEST CNR Computed tomography Computerised tomographs computerised tomography COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY CORRECTIONS DATA ANALYSIS Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications Dose‐volume analysis DOSIMETRY effective risk ELECTRON DENSITY Humans Image data processing or generation, in general IMAGE PROCESSING Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods image reconstruction ITERATIVE METHODS Iterative reconstruction JAFROC LEAST SQUARE FIT Medical image noise medical image processing Medical image reconstruction Medicin och hälsovetenskap Observation PHANTOMS Phantoms, Imaging QUANTITATIVE IMAGING AND IMAGE PROCESSING RADIATION DOSES RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY Radiography, Thoracic - methods Reconstruction Scintigraphy Three dimensional image processing Three dimensional sensing Time Factors Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods X-RAY TUBES |
| title | Effect of reconstruction methods and x-ray tube current–time product on nodule detection in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom: A crossed-modality JAFROC observer study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T23%3A03%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20reconstruction%20methods%20and%20x-ray%20tube%20current%E2%80%93time%20product%20on%20nodule%20detection%20in%20an%20anthropomorphic%20thorax%20phantom:%20A%20crossed-modality%20JAFROC%20observer%20study&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Thompson,%20J.%20D.&rft.date=2016-03&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1265&rft.epage=1274&rft.pages=1265-1274&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft.coden=MPHYA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1118/1.4941017&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E1770866860%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1770866860&rft_id=info:pmid/26936711&rfr_iscdi=true |