Cargando…

Comparison of methods for sensitivity correction in Talbot–Lau computed tomography

PURPOSE: In Talbot–Lau X-ray phase contrast imaging, the measured phase value depends on the position of the object in the measurement setup. When imaging large objects, this may lead to inhomogeneous phase contributions within the object. These inhomogeneities introduce artifacts in tomographic rec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Felsner, Lina, Roser, Philipp, Maier, Andreas, Riess, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8616885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34499282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02487-x
_version_ 1784604426213785600
author Felsner, Lina
Roser, Philipp
Maier, Andreas
Riess, Christian
author_facet Felsner, Lina
Roser, Philipp
Maier, Andreas
Riess, Christian
author_sort Felsner, Lina
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: In Talbot–Lau X-ray phase contrast imaging, the measured phase value depends on the position of the object in the measurement setup. When imaging large objects, this may lead to inhomogeneous phase contributions within the object. These inhomogeneities introduce artifacts in tomographic reconstructions of the object. METHODS: In this work, we compare recently proposed approaches to correct such reconstruction artifacts. We compare an iterative reconstruction algorithm, a known operator network and a U-net. The methods are qualitatively and quantitatively compared on the Shepp–Logan phantom and on the anatomy of a human abdomen. We also perform a dedicated experiment on the noise behavior of the methods. RESULTS: All methods were able to reduce the specific artifacts in the reconstructions for the simulated and virtual real anatomy data. The results show method-specific residual errors that are indicative for the inherently different correction approaches. While all methods were able to correct the artifacts, we report a different noise behavior. CONCLUSION: The iterative reconstruction performs very well, but at the cost of a high runtime. The known operator network shows consistently a very competitive performance. The U-net performs slightly worse, but has the benefit that it is a general-purpose network that does not require special application knowledge.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8616885
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86168852021-12-01 Comparison of methods for sensitivity correction in Talbot–Lau computed tomography Felsner, Lina Roser, Philipp Maier, Andreas Riess, Christian Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Review Article PURPOSE: In Talbot–Lau X-ray phase contrast imaging, the measured phase value depends on the position of the object in the measurement setup. When imaging large objects, this may lead to inhomogeneous phase contributions within the object. These inhomogeneities introduce artifacts in tomographic reconstructions of the object. METHODS: In this work, we compare recently proposed approaches to correct such reconstruction artifacts. We compare an iterative reconstruction algorithm, a known operator network and a U-net. The methods are qualitatively and quantitatively compared on the Shepp–Logan phantom and on the anatomy of a human abdomen. We also perform a dedicated experiment on the noise behavior of the methods. RESULTS: All methods were able to reduce the specific artifacts in the reconstructions for the simulated and virtual real anatomy data. The results show method-specific residual errors that are indicative for the inherently different correction approaches. While all methods were able to correct the artifacts, we report a different noise behavior. CONCLUSION: The iterative reconstruction performs very well, but at the cost of a high runtime. The known operator network shows consistently a very competitive performance. The U-net performs slightly worse, but has the benefit that it is a general-purpose network that does not require special application knowledge. Springer International Publishing 2021-09-09 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8616885/ /pubmed/34499282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02487-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Felsner, Lina
Roser, Philipp
Maier, Andreas
Riess, Christian
Comparison of methods for sensitivity correction in Talbot–Lau computed tomography
title Comparison of methods for sensitivity correction in Talbot–Lau computed tomography
title_full Comparison of methods for sensitivity correction in Talbot–Lau computed tomography
title_fullStr Comparison of methods for sensitivity correction in Talbot–Lau computed tomography
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of methods for sensitivity correction in Talbot–Lau computed tomography
title_short Comparison of methods for sensitivity correction in Talbot–Lau computed tomography
title_sort comparison of methods for sensitivity correction in talbot–lau computed tomography
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8616885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34499282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02487-x
work_keys_str_mv AT felsnerlina comparisonofmethodsforsensitivitycorrectionintalbotlaucomputedtomography
AT roserphilipp comparisonofmethodsforsensitivitycorrectionintalbotlaucomputedtomography
AT maierandreas comparisonofmethodsforsensitivitycorrectionintalbotlaucomputedtomography
AT riesschristian comparisonofmethodsforsensitivitycorrectionintalbotlaucomputedtomography