Cargando…

Automated procedure for slice thickness verification of computed tomography images: Variations of slice thickness, position from iso‐center, and reconstruction filter

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to automate the slice thickness verification on the AAPM CT performance phantom and validate it for variations of slice thickness, position from iso‐center, and reconstruction filter. METHODS: An automatic procedure for slice thickness verification on AAPM CT pe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lasiyah, Nani, Anam, Choirul, Hidayanto, Eko, Dougherty, Geoff
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8292687/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34109738
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13317
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to automate the slice thickness verification on the AAPM CT performance phantom and validate it for variations of slice thickness, position from iso‐center, and reconstruction filter. METHODS: An automatic procedure for slice thickness verification on AAPM CT performance phantom was developed using MATLAB R2015b. The stair object image within the phantom was segmented, and the middle stair object was located. Its angle was determined using the Hough transformation, and the image was rotated accordingly. The profile through this object was obtained, and its full‐width of half maximum (FWHM) was automatically measured. The FWHM indicated the slice thickness of the image. The automated procedure was applied with variations in three independent parameters, i.e., the slice thickness, the distance from the phantom to the iso‐center, and the reconstruction filter. The automated results were compared to manual measurements made using electronic calipers. RESULTS: The differences of the automated results from the nominal slice thicknesses were within 1.0 mm. The automated results are comparable to those from manual approach (i.e., the difference of both is within 12%). The automatic procedure accurately obtained slice thickness even when the phantom was moved from the iso‐center position by up to 4 cm above and 4 cm below the iso‐center. The automated results were similar (to within 0.1 mm) for various reconstruction filters. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed an automated procedure of slice thickness verification and confirmed that the automated procedure provided accurate results. It provided an easy and effective method of determining slice thickness.