Cargando…

Comparison of Low-Pass Filters for SPECT Imaging

In single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging, the choice of a suitable filter and its parameters for noise reduction purposes is a big challenge. Adverse effects on image quality arise if an improper filter is selected. Filtered back projection (FBP) is the most popular technique fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sayed, Inayatullah S., Ismail, Siti S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7152936/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32308670
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9239753
_version_ 1783521581591429120
author Sayed, Inayatullah S.
Ismail, Siti S.
author_facet Sayed, Inayatullah S.
Ismail, Siti S.
author_sort Sayed, Inayatullah S.
collection PubMed
description In single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging, the choice of a suitable filter and its parameters for noise reduction purposes is a big challenge. Adverse effects on image quality arise if an improper filter is selected. Filtered back projection (FBP) is the most popular technique for image reconstruction in SPECT. With this technique, different types of reconstruction filters are used, such as the Butterworth and the Hamming. In this study, the effects on the quality of reconstructed images of the Butterworth filter were compared with the ones of the Hamming filter. A Philips ADAC forte gamma camera was used. A low-energy, high-resolution collimator was installed on the gamma camera. SPECT data were acquired by scanning a phantom with an insert composed of hot and cold regions. A Technetium-99m radioactive solution was homogenously mixed into the phantom. Furthermore, a symmetrical energy window (20%) centered at 140 keV was adjusted. Images were reconstructed by the FBP method. Various cutoff frequency values, namely, 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, and 0.50 cycles/cm, were selected for both filters, whereas for the Butterworth filter, the order was set at 7. Images of hot and cold regions were analyzed in terms of detectability, contrast, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The findings of our study indicate that the Butterworth filter was able to expose more hot and cold regions in reconstructed images. In addition, higher contrast values were recorded, as compared to the Hamming filter. However, with the Butterworth filter, the decrease in SNR for both types of regions with the increase in cutoff frequency as compared to the Hamming filter was obtained. Overall, the Butterworth filter under investigation provided superior results than the Hamming filter. Effects of both filters on the quality of hot and cold region images varied with the change in cutoff frequency.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7152936
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71529362020-04-17 Comparison of Low-Pass Filters for SPECT Imaging Sayed, Inayatullah S. Ismail, Siti S. Int J Biomed Imaging Research Article In single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging, the choice of a suitable filter and its parameters for noise reduction purposes is a big challenge. Adverse effects on image quality arise if an improper filter is selected. Filtered back projection (FBP) is the most popular technique for image reconstruction in SPECT. With this technique, different types of reconstruction filters are used, such as the Butterworth and the Hamming. In this study, the effects on the quality of reconstructed images of the Butterworth filter were compared with the ones of the Hamming filter. A Philips ADAC forte gamma camera was used. A low-energy, high-resolution collimator was installed on the gamma camera. SPECT data were acquired by scanning a phantom with an insert composed of hot and cold regions. A Technetium-99m radioactive solution was homogenously mixed into the phantom. Furthermore, a symmetrical energy window (20%) centered at 140 keV was adjusted. Images were reconstructed by the FBP method. Various cutoff frequency values, namely, 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, and 0.50 cycles/cm, were selected for both filters, whereas for the Butterworth filter, the order was set at 7. Images of hot and cold regions were analyzed in terms of detectability, contrast, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The findings of our study indicate that the Butterworth filter was able to expose more hot and cold regions in reconstructed images. In addition, higher contrast values were recorded, as compared to the Hamming filter. However, with the Butterworth filter, the decrease in SNR for both types of regions with the increase in cutoff frequency as compared to the Hamming filter was obtained. Overall, the Butterworth filter under investigation provided superior results than the Hamming filter. Effects of both filters on the quality of hot and cold region images varied with the change in cutoff frequency. Hindawi 2020-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7152936/ /pubmed/32308670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9239753 Text en Copyright © 2020 Inayatullah S. Sayed and Siti S. Ismail. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sayed, Inayatullah S.
Ismail, Siti S.
Comparison of Low-Pass Filters for SPECT Imaging
title Comparison of Low-Pass Filters for SPECT Imaging
title_full Comparison of Low-Pass Filters for SPECT Imaging
title_fullStr Comparison of Low-Pass Filters for SPECT Imaging
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Low-Pass Filters for SPECT Imaging
title_short Comparison of Low-Pass Filters for SPECT Imaging
title_sort comparison of low-pass filters for spect imaging
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7152936/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32308670
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9239753
work_keys_str_mv AT sayedinayatullahs comparisonoflowpassfiltersforspectimaging
AT ismailsitis comparisonoflowpassfiltersforspectimaging