Cargando…

Comparative performance analysis for abdominal phantom ROI detectability according to CT reconstruction algorithm: ADMIRE

PURPOSE: We compared and analyzed the detectability performance pertaining to an abdominal phantom including a region of interest (ROI) according to a computed tomography (CT) reconstruction algorithm. METHODS: Three types of reconstruction algorithms (FBP, SAFIRE, and ADMIRE) were used to evaluate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shin, Jun‐Bong, Yoon, Do‐Kun, Pak, Seongyong, Kwon, Yang‐Ho, Suh, Tae Suk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6964754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31729832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12765
_version_ 1783488513611661312
author Shin, Jun‐Bong
Yoon, Do‐Kun
Pak, Seongyong
Kwon, Yang‐Ho
Suh, Tae Suk
author_facet Shin, Jun‐Bong
Yoon, Do‐Kun
Pak, Seongyong
Kwon, Yang‐Ho
Suh, Tae Suk
author_sort Shin, Jun‐Bong
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: We compared and analyzed the detectability performance pertaining to an abdominal phantom including a region of interest (ROI) according to a computed tomography (CT) reconstruction algorithm. METHODS: Three types of reconstruction algorithms (FBP, SAFIRE, and ADMIRE) were used to evaluate the detectability performance using the abdominal phantom (phantom size: 25 × 18 × 28 cm(3)). The vendor default settings for routine multi‐detector computed tomography abdominal scans were used. As the quantitative evaluation method, the contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), difference in coefficient of variation (COV) with the normalization based on the FBP data, and the noise power spectrum (NPS) were measured. RESULTS: The characteristic of the ADMIRE‐3 reconstructed image was higher than those of the FBP and SAFIRE‐3 reconstructed images. The CNR values of the SAFIRE and ADMIRE images were much higher than the corresponding values of the FBP images. The difference in COV values for the ADMIRE images was ~1.2 times lower than the corresponding values of the SAFIRE images. CONCLUSION: The comparative analysis of the abdominal phantom low‐contrast resolution differences for each CT exposure parameters showed that ADMIRE demonstrated better results than SAFIRE and FBP in terms of contrast, CNR, COV difference, and 1D NPS. This indicates that ADMIRE can provide a clearer observation even with the same number of contrast objects as compared to SAFIRE and FBP owing to its better contrast resolution in the central part of the contrast hole at low kV.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6964754
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69647542020-01-27 Comparative performance analysis for abdominal phantom ROI detectability according to CT reconstruction algorithm: ADMIRE Shin, Jun‐Bong Yoon, Do‐Kun Pak, Seongyong Kwon, Yang‐Ho Suh, Tae Suk J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging PURPOSE: We compared and analyzed the detectability performance pertaining to an abdominal phantom including a region of interest (ROI) according to a computed tomography (CT) reconstruction algorithm. METHODS: Three types of reconstruction algorithms (FBP, SAFIRE, and ADMIRE) were used to evaluate the detectability performance using the abdominal phantom (phantom size: 25 × 18 × 28 cm(3)). The vendor default settings for routine multi‐detector computed tomography abdominal scans were used. As the quantitative evaluation method, the contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), difference in coefficient of variation (COV) with the normalization based on the FBP data, and the noise power spectrum (NPS) were measured. RESULTS: The characteristic of the ADMIRE‐3 reconstructed image was higher than those of the FBP and SAFIRE‐3 reconstructed images. The CNR values of the SAFIRE and ADMIRE images were much higher than the corresponding values of the FBP images. The difference in COV values for the ADMIRE images was ~1.2 times lower than the corresponding values of the SAFIRE images. CONCLUSION: The comparative analysis of the abdominal phantom low‐contrast resolution differences for each CT exposure parameters showed that ADMIRE demonstrated better results than SAFIRE and FBP in terms of contrast, CNR, COV difference, and 1D NPS. This indicates that ADMIRE can provide a clearer observation even with the same number of contrast objects as compared to SAFIRE and FBP owing to its better contrast resolution in the central part of the contrast hole at low kV. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6964754/ /pubmed/31729832 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12765 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Shin, Jun‐Bong
Yoon, Do‐Kun
Pak, Seongyong
Kwon, Yang‐Ho
Suh, Tae Suk
Comparative performance analysis for abdominal phantom ROI detectability according to CT reconstruction algorithm: ADMIRE
title Comparative performance analysis for abdominal phantom ROI detectability according to CT reconstruction algorithm: ADMIRE
title_full Comparative performance analysis for abdominal phantom ROI detectability according to CT reconstruction algorithm: ADMIRE
title_fullStr Comparative performance analysis for abdominal phantom ROI detectability according to CT reconstruction algorithm: ADMIRE
title_full_unstemmed Comparative performance analysis for abdominal phantom ROI detectability according to CT reconstruction algorithm: ADMIRE
title_short Comparative performance analysis for abdominal phantom ROI detectability according to CT reconstruction algorithm: ADMIRE
title_sort comparative performance analysis for abdominal phantom roi detectability according to ct reconstruction algorithm: admire
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6964754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31729832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12765
work_keys_str_mv AT shinjunbong comparativeperformanceanalysisforabdominalphantomroidetectabilityaccordingtoctreconstructionalgorithmadmire
AT yoondokun comparativeperformanceanalysisforabdominalphantomroidetectabilityaccordingtoctreconstructionalgorithmadmire
AT pakseongyong comparativeperformanceanalysisforabdominalphantomroidetectabilityaccordingtoctreconstructionalgorithmadmire
AT kwonyangho comparativeperformanceanalysisforabdominalphantomroidetectabilityaccordingtoctreconstructionalgorithmadmire
AT suhtaesuk comparativeperformanceanalysisforabdominalphantomroidetectabilityaccordingtoctreconstructionalgorithmadmire