Technical Note: Measuring contrast‐ and noise‐dependent spatial resolution of an iterative reconstruction method in CT using ensemble averaging

Purpose: The spatial resolution of iterative reconstruction (IR) in computed tomography (CT) is contrast‐ and noise‐dependent because of the nonlinear regularization. Due to the severe noise contamination, it is challenging to perform precise spatial‐resolution measurements at very low‐contrast leve...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical physics (Lancaster) 2015-05, Vol.42 (5), p.2261-2267
Hauptverfasser: Yu, Lifeng, Vrieze, Thomas J., Leng, Shuai, Fletcher, Joel G., McCollough, Cynthia H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2267
container_issue 5
container_start_page 2261
container_title Medical physics (Lancaster)
container_volume 42
creator Yu, Lifeng
Vrieze, Thomas J.
Leng, Shuai
Fletcher, Joel G.
McCollough, Cynthia H.
description Purpose: The spatial resolution of iterative reconstruction (IR) in computed tomography (CT) is contrast‐ and noise‐dependent because of the nonlinear regularization. Due to the severe noise contamination, it is challenging to perform precise spatial‐resolution measurements at very low‐contrast levels. The purpose of this study was to measure the spatial resolution of a commercially available IR method using ensemble‐averaged images acquired from repeated scans. Methods: A low‐contrast phantom containing three rods (7, 14, and 21 HU below background) was scanned on a 128‐slice CT scanner at three dose levels (CTDIvol = 16, 8, and 4 mGy). Images were reconstructed using two filtered‐backprojection (FBP) kernels (B40 and B20) and a commercial IR method (sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction, SAFIRE, Siemens Healthcare) with two strength settings (I40‐3 and I40‐5). The same scan was repeated 100 times at each dose level. The modulation transfer function (MTF) was calculated based on the edge profile measured on the ensemble‐averaged images. Results: The spatial resolution of the two FBP kernels, B40 and B20, remained relatively constant across contrast and dose levels. However, the spatial resolution of the two IR kernels degraded relative to FBP as contrast or dose level decreased. For a given dose level at 16 mGy, the MTF50% value normalized to the B40 kernel decreased from 98.4% at 21 HU to 88.5% at 7 HU for I40‐3 and from 97.6% to 82.1% for I40‐5. At 21 HU, the relative MTF50% value decreased from 98.4% at 16 mGy to 90.7% at 4 mGy for I40‐3 and from 97.6% to 85.6% for I40‐5. Conclusions: A simple technique using ensemble averaging from repeated CT scans can be used to measure the spatial resolution of IR techniques in CT at very low contrast levels. The evaluated IR method degraded the spatial resolution at low contrast and high noise levels.
doi_str_mv 10.1118/1.4916802
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wiley_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4401802</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>MP6802</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5072-3ec50f50dbace97174ac4fbef89c36d5dd4c0235a7eaf1da9c0f9159273e8adb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9uEzEQxi0EoqFw4AWQJU4ctoy9djbmgFRF_JNa4BDOlteeTYw2dmR7g3rjESr1DXkSnKZUcOA0sr_ffOPxR8hzBmeMscVrdiYUmy-APyAzLrq2ERzUQzIDUKLhAuQJeZLzdwCYtxIekxMuVaeAw4zcrNBugrdmpJ9jwTf0Ek2ekg9ramMoyeTy6-c1NcHREH3GenC4w-AwFJp3pvjamTDHcSo-BhqHylJfMFVpj1WqNrmkyd7KWyyb6KgPdLmiUz6MwZBx249Izb42revVU_JoMGPGZ3f1lHx7_261_NhcfPnwaXl-0VgJHW9arHWQ4HpjUXWsE8aKocdhoWw7d9I5YYG30nRoBuaMsjAoJhXvWlwY17en5O3Rdzf1W3QWD_uOepf81qQrHY3X_yrBb_Q67rUQwOpvV4OXR4OYi9fZ1rXtpu4b0BbNuWCtFLJSr46UTTHnhMP9BAb6kJ9m-i6_yr74-0n35J_AKtAcgR9-xKv_O-nLr7eGvwFL-6nJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Technical Note: Measuring contrast‐ and noise‐dependent spatial resolution of an iterative reconstruction method in CT using ensemble averaging</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Yu, Lifeng ; Vrieze, Thomas J. ; Leng, Shuai ; Fletcher, Joel G. ; McCollough, Cynthia H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Yu, Lifeng ; Vrieze, Thomas J. ; Leng, Shuai ; Fletcher, Joel G. ; McCollough, Cynthia H.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: The spatial resolution of iterative reconstruction (IR) in computed tomography (CT) is contrast‐ and noise‐dependent because of the nonlinear regularization. Due to the severe noise contamination, it is challenging to perform precise spatial‐resolution measurements at very low‐contrast levels. The purpose of this study was to measure the spatial resolution of a commercially available IR method using ensemble‐averaged images acquired from repeated scans. Methods: A low‐contrast phantom containing three rods (7, 14, and 21 HU below background) was scanned on a 128‐slice CT scanner at three dose levels (CTDIvol = 16, 8, and 4 mGy). Images were reconstructed using two filtered‐backprojection (FBP) kernels (B40 and B20) and a commercial IR method (sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction, SAFIRE, Siemens Healthcare) with two strength settings (I40‐3 and I40‐5). The same scan was repeated 100 times at each dose level. The modulation transfer function (MTF) was calculated based on the edge profile measured on the ensemble‐averaged images. Results: The spatial resolution of the two FBP kernels, B40 and B20, remained relatively constant across contrast and dose levels. However, the spatial resolution of the two IR kernels degraded relative to FBP as contrast or dose level decreased. For a given dose level at 16 mGy, the MTF50% value normalized to the B40 kernel decreased from 98.4% at 21 HU to 88.5% at 7 HU for I40‐3 and from 97.6% to 82.1% for I40‐5. At 21 HU, the relative MTF50% value decreased from 98.4% at 16 mGy to 90.7% at 4 mGy for I40‐3 and from 97.6% to 85.6% for I40‐5. Conclusions: A simple technique using ensemble averaging from repeated CT scans can be used to measure the spatial resolution of IR techniques in CT at very low contrast levels. The evaluated IR method degraded the spatial resolution at low contrast and high noise levels.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1118/1.4916802</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25979020</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 ; CAT SCANNING ; Computed tomography ; computed tomography (CT) ; Computerised tomographs ; computerised tomography ; Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications ; FILTERS ; Image data processing or generation, in general ; IMAGE PROCESSING ; image quality ; image reconstruction ; image resolution ; INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ; ITERATIVE METHODS ; iterative reconstruction (IR) ; Medical image contrast ; Medical image noise ; medical image processing ; Medical image reconstruction ; Medical image spatial resolution ; Modulation transfer functions ; NOISE ; PHANTOMS ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Radiation Dosage ; RADIATION DOSES ; Radiation Imaging Physics ; SPATIAL RESOLUTION ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2015-05, Vol.42 (5), p.2261-2267</ispartof><rights>2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5072-3ec50f50dbace97174ac4fbef89c36d5dd4c0235a7eaf1da9c0f9159273e8adb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5072-3ec50f50dbace97174ac4fbef89c36d5dd4c0235a7eaf1da9c0f9159273e8adb3</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%2F1.4916802$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1118%2F1.4916802$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25979020$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/22413545$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yu, Lifeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrieze, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leng, Shuai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Joel G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCollough, Cynthia H.</creatorcontrib><title>Technical Note: Measuring contrast‐ and noise‐dependent spatial resolution of an iterative reconstruction method in CT using ensemble averaging</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose: The spatial resolution of iterative reconstruction (IR) in computed tomography (CT) is contrast‐ and noise‐dependent because of the nonlinear regularization. Due to the severe noise contamination, it is challenging to perform precise spatial‐resolution measurements at very low‐contrast levels. The purpose of this study was to measure the spatial resolution of a commercially available IR method using ensemble‐averaged images acquired from repeated scans. Methods: A low‐contrast phantom containing three rods (7, 14, and 21 HU below background) was scanned on a 128‐slice CT scanner at three dose levels (CTDIvol = 16, 8, and 4 mGy). Images were reconstructed using two filtered‐backprojection (FBP) kernels (B40 and B20) and a commercial IR method (sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction, SAFIRE, Siemens Healthcare) with two strength settings (I40‐3 and I40‐5). The same scan was repeated 100 times at each dose level. The modulation transfer function (MTF) was calculated based on the edge profile measured on the ensemble‐averaged images. Results: The spatial resolution of the two FBP kernels, B40 and B20, remained relatively constant across contrast and dose levels. However, the spatial resolution of the two IR kernels degraded relative to FBP as contrast or dose level decreased. For a given dose level at 16 mGy, the MTF50% value normalized to the B40 kernel decreased from 98.4% at 21 HU to 88.5% at 7 HU for I40‐3 and from 97.6% to 82.1% for I40‐5. At 21 HU, the relative MTF50% value decreased from 98.4% at 16 mGy to 90.7% at 4 mGy for I40‐3 and from 97.6% to 85.6% for I40‐5. Conclusions: A simple technique using ensemble averaging from repeated CT scans can be used to measure the spatial resolution of IR techniques in CT at very low contrast levels. The evaluated IR method degraded the spatial resolution at low contrast and high noise levels.</description><subject>60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES</subject><subject>Biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Haemocytometers</subject><subject>CAT SCANNING</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>computed tomography (CT)</subject><subject>Computerised tomographs</subject><subject>computerised tomography</subject><subject>Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications</subject><subject>FILTERS</subject><subject>Image data processing or generation, in general</subject><subject>IMAGE PROCESSING</subject><subject>image quality</subject><subject>image reconstruction</subject><subject>image resolution</subject><subject>INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY</subject><subject>ITERATIVE METHODS</subject><subject>iterative reconstruction (IR)</subject><subject>Medical image contrast</subject><subject>Medical image noise</subject><subject>medical image processing</subject><subject>Medical image reconstruction</subject><subject>Medical image spatial resolution</subject><subject>Modulation transfer functions</subject><subject>NOISE</subject><subject>PHANTOMS</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>RADIATION DOSES</subject><subject>Radiation Imaging Physics</subject><subject>SPATIAL RESOLUTION</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc9uEzEQxi0EoqFw4AWQJU4ctoy9djbmgFRF_JNa4BDOlteeTYw2dmR7g3rjESr1DXkSnKZUcOA0sr_ffOPxR8hzBmeMscVrdiYUmy-APyAzLrq2ERzUQzIDUKLhAuQJeZLzdwCYtxIekxMuVaeAw4zcrNBugrdmpJ9jwTf0Ek2ekg9ramMoyeTy6-c1NcHREH3GenC4w-AwFJp3pvjamTDHcSo-BhqHylJfMFVpj1WqNrmkyd7KWyyb6KgPdLmiUz6MwZBx249Izb42revVU_JoMGPGZ3f1lHx7_261_NhcfPnwaXl-0VgJHW9arHWQ4HpjUXWsE8aKocdhoWw7d9I5YYG30nRoBuaMsjAoJhXvWlwY17en5O3Rdzf1W3QWD_uOepf81qQrHY3X_yrBb_Q67rUQwOpvV4OXR4OYi9fZ1rXtpu4b0BbNuWCtFLJSr46UTTHnhMP9BAb6kJ9m-i6_yr74-0n35J_AKtAcgR9-xKv_O-nLr7eGvwFL-6nJ</recordid><startdate>201505</startdate><enddate>201505</enddate><creator>Yu, Lifeng</creator><creator>Vrieze, Thomas J.</creator><creator>Leng, Shuai</creator><creator>Fletcher, Joel G.</creator><creator>McCollough, Cynthia H.</creator><general>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</general><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>OTOTI</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201505</creationdate><title>Technical Note: Measuring contrast‐ and noise‐dependent spatial resolution of an iterative reconstruction method in CT using ensemble averaging</title><author>Yu, Lifeng ; Vrieze, Thomas J. ; Leng, Shuai ; Fletcher, Joel G. ; McCollough, Cynthia H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5072-3ec50f50dbace97174ac4fbef89c36d5dd4c0235a7eaf1da9c0f9159273e8adb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES</topic><topic>Biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Haemocytometers</topic><topic>CAT SCANNING</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>computed tomography (CT)</topic><topic>Computerised tomographs</topic><topic>computerised tomography</topic><topic>Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications</topic><topic>FILTERS</topic><topic>Image data processing or generation, in general</topic><topic>IMAGE PROCESSING</topic><topic>image quality</topic><topic>image reconstruction</topic><topic>image resolution</topic><topic>INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY</topic><topic>ITERATIVE METHODS</topic><topic>iterative reconstruction (IR)</topic><topic>Medical image contrast</topic><topic>Medical image noise</topic><topic>medical image processing</topic><topic>Medical image reconstruction</topic><topic>Medical image spatial resolution</topic><topic>Modulation transfer functions</topic><topic>NOISE</topic><topic>PHANTOMS</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>RADIATION DOSES</topic><topic>Radiation Imaging Physics</topic><topic>SPATIAL RESOLUTION</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yu, Lifeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrieze, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leng, Shuai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Joel G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCollough, Cynthia H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yu, Lifeng</au><au>Vrieze, Thomas J.</au><au>Leng, Shuai</au><au>Fletcher, Joel G.</au><au>McCollough, Cynthia H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Technical Note: Measuring contrast‐ and noise‐dependent spatial resolution of an iterative reconstruction method in CT using ensemble averaging</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2015-05</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>2261</spage><epage>2267</epage><pages>2261-2267</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><abstract>Purpose: The spatial resolution of iterative reconstruction (IR) in computed tomography (CT) is contrast‐ and noise‐dependent because of the nonlinear regularization. Due to the severe noise contamination, it is challenging to perform precise spatial‐resolution measurements at very low‐contrast levels. The purpose of this study was to measure the spatial resolution of a commercially available IR method using ensemble‐averaged images acquired from repeated scans. Methods: A low‐contrast phantom containing three rods (7, 14, and 21 HU below background) was scanned on a 128‐slice CT scanner at three dose levels (CTDIvol = 16, 8, and 4 mGy). Images were reconstructed using two filtered‐backprojection (FBP) kernels (B40 and B20) and a commercial IR method (sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction, SAFIRE, Siemens Healthcare) with two strength settings (I40‐3 and I40‐5). The same scan was repeated 100 times at each dose level. The modulation transfer function (MTF) was calculated based on the edge profile measured on the ensemble‐averaged images. Results: The spatial resolution of the two FBP kernels, B40 and B20, remained relatively constant across contrast and dose levels. However, the spatial resolution of the two IR kernels degraded relative to FBP as contrast or dose level decreased. For a given dose level at 16 mGy, the MTF50% value normalized to the B40 kernel decreased from 98.4% at 21 HU to 88.5% at 7 HU for I40‐3 and from 97.6% to 82.1% for I40‐5. At 21 HU, the relative MTF50% value decreased from 98.4% at 16 mGy to 90.7% at 4 mGy for I40‐3 and from 97.6% to 85.6% for I40‐5. Conclusions: A simple technique using ensemble averaging from repeated CT scans can be used to measure the spatial resolution of IR techniques in CT at very low contrast levels. The evaluated IR method degraded the spatial resolution at low contrast and high noise levels.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</pub><pmid>25979020</pmid><doi>10.1118/1.4916802</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0094-2405
ispartof Medical physics (Lancaster), 2015-05, Vol.42 (5), p.2261-2267
issn 0094-2405
2473-4209
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4401802
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES
Biological material, e.g. blood, urine
Haemocytometers
CAT SCANNING
Computed tomography
computed tomography (CT)
Computerised tomographs
computerised tomography
Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications
FILTERS
Image data processing or generation, in general
IMAGE PROCESSING
image quality
image reconstruction
image resolution
INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ITERATIVE METHODS
iterative reconstruction (IR)
Medical image contrast
Medical image noise
medical image processing
Medical image reconstruction
Medical image spatial resolution
Modulation transfer functions
NOISE
PHANTOMS
Phantoms, Imaging
Radiation Dosage
RADIATION DOSES
Radiation Imaging Physics
SPATIAL RESOLUTION
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
title Technical Note: Measuring contrast‐ and noise‐dependent spatial resolution of an iterative reconstruction method in CT using ensemble averaging
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T03%3A47%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Technical%20Note:%20Measuring%20contrast%E2%80%90%20and%20noise%E2%80%90dependent%20spatial%20resolution%20of%20an%20iterative%20reconstruction%20method%20in%20CT%20using%20ensemble%20averaging&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Yu,%20Lifeng&rft.date=2015-05&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=2261&rft.epage=2267&rft.pages=2261-2267&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft_id=info:doi/10.1118/1.4916802&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_pubme%3EMP6802%3C/wiley_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/25979020&rfr_iscdi=true