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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |