Cargando…

Practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical CT scanners

Local noise power spectra (NPS) have been commonly calculated to represent the noise properties of CT imaging systems, but their properties are significantly affected by the utilized calculation schemes. In this study, the effects of varied calculation parameters on the local NPS were analyzed, and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dolly, Steven, Chen, Hsin‐Chen, Anastasio, Mark, Mutic, Sasa, Li, Hua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.5841
_version_ 1783279693951139840
author Dolly, Steven
Chen, Hsin‐Chen
Anastasio, Mark
Mutic, Sasa
Li, Hua
author_facet Dolly, Steven
Chen, Hsin‐Chen
Anastasio, Mark
Mutic, Sasa
Li, Hua
author_sort Dolly, Steven
collection PubMed
description Local noise power spectra (NPS) have been commonly calculated to represent the noise properties of CT imaging systems, but their properties are significantly affected by the utilized calculation schemes. In this study, the effects of varied calculation parameters on the local NPS were analyzed, and practical suggestions were provided regarding the estimation of local NPS for clinical CT scanners. The uniformity module of a Catphan phantom was scanned with a Philips Brilliance 64 slice CT simulator with varied scanning protocols. Images were reconstructed using FBP and iDose(4) iterative reconstruction with noise reduction levels 1, 3, and 6. Local NPS were calculated and compared for varied region of interest (ROI) locations and sizes, image background removal methods, and window functions. Additionally, with a predetermined NPS as a ground truth, local NPS calculation accuracy was compared for computer simulated ROIs, varying the aforementioned parameters in addition to ROI number. An analysis of the effects of these varied calculation parameters on the magnitude and shape of the NPS was conducted. The local NPS varied depending on calculation parameters, particularly at low spatial frequencies below [Formula: see text]. For the simulation study, NPS calculation error decreased exponentially as ROI number increased. For the Catphan study the NPS magnitude varied as a function of ROI location, which was better observed when using smaller ROI sizes. The image subtraction method for background removal was the most effective at reducing low‐frequency background noise, and produced similar results no matter which ROI size or window function was used. The PCA background removal method with a Hann window function produced the closest match to image subtraction, with an average percent difference of 17.5%. Image noise should be analyzed locally by calculating the NPS for small ROI sizes. A minimum ROI size is recommended based on the chosen radial bin size and image pixel dimensions. As the ROI size decreases, the NPS becomes more dependent on the choice of background removal method and window function. The image subtraction method is most accurate, but other methods can achieve similar accuracy if certain window functions are applied. All dependencies should be analyzed and taken into account when considering the interpretation of the NPS for task‐based image quality assessment. PACS number(s): 87.57.C‐, 87.57.Q‐
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690921
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56909212018-04-02 Practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical CT scanners Dolly, Steven Chen, Hsin‐Chen Anastasio, Mark Mutic, Sasa Li, Hua J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging Local noise power spectra (NPS) have been commonly calculated to represent the noise properties of CT imaging systems, but their properties are significantly affected by the utilized calculation schemes. In this study, the effects of varied calculation parameters on the local NPS were analyzed, and practical suggestions were provided regarding the estimation of local NPS for clinical CT scanners. The uniformity module of a Catphan phantom was scanned with a Philips Brilliance 64 slice CT simulator with varied scanning protocols. Images were reconstructed using FBP and iDose(4) iterative reconstruction with noise reduction levels 1, 3, and 6. Local NPS were calculated and compared for varied region of interest (ROI) locations and sizes, image background removal methods, and window functions. Additionally, with a predetermined NPS as a ground truth, local NPS calculation accuracy was compared for computer simulated ROIs, varying the aforementioned parameters in addition to ROI number. An analysis of the effects of these varied calculation parameters on the magnitude and shape of the NPS was conducted. The local NPS varied depending on calculation parameters, particularly at low spatial frequencies below [Formula: see text]. For the simulation study, NPS calculation error decreased exponentially as ROI number increased. For the Catphan study the NPS magnitude varied as a function of ROI location, which was better observed when using smaller ROI sizes. The image subtraction method for background removal was the most effective at reducing low‐frequency background noise, and produced similar results no matter which ROI size or window function was used. The PCA background removal method with a Hann window function produced the closest match to image subtraction, with an average percent difference of 17.5%. Image noise should be analyzed locally by calculating the NPS for small ROI sizes. A minimum ROI size is recommended based on the chosen radial bin size and image pixel dimensions. As the ROI size decreases, the NPS becomes more dependent on the choice of background removal method and window function. The image subtraction method is most accurate, but other methods can achieve similar accuracy if certain window functions are applied. All dependencies should be analyzed and taken into account when considering the interpretation of the NPS for task‐based image quality assessment. PACS number(s): 87.57.C‐, 87.57.Q‐ John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690921/ /pubmed/27167257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.5841 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Dolly, Steven
Chen, Hsin‐Chen
Anastasio, Mark
Mutic, Sasa
Li, Hua
Practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical CT scanners
title Practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical CT scanners
title_full Practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical CT scanners
title_fullStr Practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical CT scanners
title_full_unstemmed Practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical CT scanners
title_short Practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical CT scanners
title_sort practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical ct scanners
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.5841
work_keys_str_mv AT dollysteven practicalconsiderationsfornoisepowerspectraestimationforclinicalctscanners
AT chenhsinchen practicalconsiderationsfornoisepowerspectraestimationforclinicalctscanners
AT anastasiomark practicalconsiderationsfornoisepowerspectraestimationforclinicalctscanners
AT muticsasa practicalconsiderationsfornoisepowerspectraestimationforclinicalctscanners
AT lihua practicalconsiderationsfornoisepowerspectraestimationforclinicalctscanners