Cargando…

Deep Learning-Based Versus Iterative Image Reconstruction for Unenhanced Brain CT: A Quantitative Comparison of Image Quality

This exploratory retrospective study aims to quantitatively compare the image quality of unenhanced brain computed tomography (CT) reconstructed with an iterative (AIDR-3D) and a deep learning-based (AiCE) reconstruction algorithm. After a preliminary phantom study, AIDR-3D and AiCE reconstructions...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cozzi, Andrea, Cè, Maurizio, De Padova, Giuseppe, Libri, Dario, Caldarelli, Nazarena, Zucconi, Fabio, Oliva, Giancarlo, Cellina, Michaela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37736983
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tomography9050130
_version_ 1785108823381377024
author Cozzi, Andrea
Cè, Maurizio
De Padova, Giuseppe
Libri, Dario
Caldarelli, Nazarena
Zucconi, Fabio
Oliva, Giancarlo
Cellina, Michaela
author_facet Cozzi, Andrea
Cè, Maurizio
De Padova, Giuseppe
Libri, Dario
Caldarelli, Nazarena
Zucconi, Fabio
Oliva, Giancarlo
Cellina, Michaela
author_sort Cozzi, Andrea
collection PubMed
description This exploratory retrospective study aims to quantitatively compare the image quality of unenhanced brain computed tomography (CT) reconstructed with an iterative (AIDR-3D) and a deep learning-based (AiCE) reconstruction algorithm. After a preliminary phantom study, AIDR-3D and AiCE reconstructions (0.5 mm thickness) of 100 consecutive brain CTs acquired in the emergency setting on the same 320-detector row CT scanner were retrospectively analyzed, calculating image noise reduction attributable to the AiCE algorithm, artifact indexes in the posterior cranial fossa, and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) at the cortical and thalamic levels. In the phantom study, the spatial resolution of the two datasets proved to be comparable; conversely, AIDR-3D reconstructions showed a broader noise pattern. In the human study, median image noise was lower with AiCE compared to AIDR-3D (4.7 vs. 5.3, p < 0.001, median 19.6% noise reduction), whereas AIDR-3D yielded a lower artifact index than AiCE (7.5 vs. 8.4, p < 0.001). AiCE also showed higher median CNRs at the cortical (2.5 vs. 1.8, p < 0.001) and thalamic levels (2.8 vs. 1.7, p < 0.001). These results highlight how image quality improvements granted by deep learning-based (AiCE) and iterative (AIDR-3D) image reconstruction algorithms vary according to different brain areas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10514884
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105148842023-09-23 Deep Learning-Based Versus Iterative Image Reconstruction for Unenhanced Brain CT: A Quantitative Comparison of Image Quality Cozzi, Andrea Cè, Maurizio De Padova, Giuseppe Libri, Dario Caldarelli, Nazarena Zucconi, Fabio Oliva, Giancarlo Cellina, Michaela Tomography Article This exploratory retrospective study aims to quantitatively compare the image quality of unenhanced brain computed tomography (CT) reconstructed with an iterative (AIDR-3D) and a deep learning-based (AiCE) reconstruction algorithm. After a preliminary phantom study, AIDR-3D and AiCE reconstructions (0.5 mm thickness) of 100 consecutive brain CTs acquired in the emergency setting on the same 320-detector row CT scanner were retrospectively analyzed, calculating image noise reduction attributable to the AiCE algorithm, artifact indexes in the posterior cranial fossa, and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) at the cortical and thalamic levels. In the phantom study, the spatial resolution of the two datasets proved to be comparable; conversely, AIDR-3D reconstructions showed a broader noise pattern. In the human study, median image noise was lower with AiCE compared to AIDR-3D (4.7 vs. 5.3, p < 0.001, median 19.6% noise reduction), whereas AIDR-3D yielded a lower artifact index than AiCE (7.5 vs. 8.4, p < 0.001). AiCE also showed higher median CNRs at the cortical (2.5 vs. 1.8, p < 0.001) and thalamic levels (2.8 vs. 1.7, p < 0.001). These results highlight how image quality improvements granted by deep learning-based (AiCE) and iterative (AIDR-3D) image reconstruction algorithms vary according to different brain areas. MDPI 2023-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10514884/ /pubmed/37736983 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tomography9050130 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Cozzi, Andrea
Cè, Maurizio
De Padova, Giuseppe
Libri, Dario
Caldarelli, Nazarena
Zucconi, Fabio
Oliva, Giancarlo
Cellina, Michaela
Deep Learning-Based Versus Iterative Image Reconstruction for Unenhanced Brain CT: A Quantitative Comparison of Image Quality
title Deep Learning-Based Versus Iterative Image Reconstruction for Unenhanced Brain CT: A Quantitative Comparison of Image Quality
title_full Deep Learning-Based Versus Iterative Image Reconstruction for Unenhanced Brain CT: A Quantitative Comparison of Image Quality
title_fullStr Deep Learning-Based Versus Iterative Image Reconstruction for Unenhanced Brain CT: A Quantitative Comparison of Image Quality
title_full_unstemmed Deep Learning-Based Versus Iterative Image Reconstruction for Unenhanced Brain CT: A Quantitative Comparison of Image Quality
title_short Deep Learning-Based Versus Iterative Image Reconstruction for Unenhanced Brain CT: A Quantitative Comparison of Image Quality
title_sort deep learning-based versus iterative image reconstruction for unenhanced brain ct: a quantitative comparison of image quality
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37736983
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tomography9050130
work_keys_str_mv AT cozziandrea deeplearningbasedversusiterativeimagereconstructionforunenhancedbrainctaquantitativecomparisonofimagequality
AT cemaurizio deeplearningbasedversusiterativeimagereconstructionforunenhancedbrainctaquantitativecomparisonofimagequality
AT depadovagiuseppe deeplearningbasedversusiterativeimagereconstructionforunenhancedbrainctaquantitativecomparisonofimagequality
AT libridario deeplearningbasedversusiterativeimagereconstructionforunenhancedbrainctaquantitativecomparisonofimagequality
AT caldarellinazarena deeplearningbasedversusiterativeimagereconstructionforunenhancedbrainctaquantitativecomparisonofimagequality
AT zucconifabio deeplearningbasedversusiterativeimagereconstructionforunenhancedbrainctaquantitativecomparisonofimagequality
AT olivagiancarlo deeplearningbasedversusiterativeimagereconstructionforunenhancedbrainctaquantitativecomparisonofimagequality
AT cellinamichaela deeplearningbasedversusiterativeimagereconstructionforunenhancedbrainctaquantitativecomparisonofimagequality