Cargando…

Deep learning versus iterative image reconstruction algorithm for head CT in trauma

PURPOSE: To compare the image quality between a deep learning–based image reconstruction algorithm (DLIR) and an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm (ASiR-V) in noncontrast trauma head CT. METHODS: Head CT scans from 94 consecutive trauma patients were included. Images were recon...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alagic, Zlatan, Diaz Cardenas, Jacqueline, Halldorsson, Kolbeinn, Grozman, Vitali, Wallgren, Stig, Suzuki, Chikako, Helmenkamp, Johan, Koskinen, Seppo K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8917108/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34984574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10140-021-02012-2
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To compare the image quality between a deep learning–based image reconstruction algorithm (DLIR) and an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm (ASiR-V) in noncontrast trauma head CT. METHODS: Head CT scans from 94 consecutive trauma patients were included. Images were reconstructed with ASiR-V 50% and the DLIR strengths: low (DLIR-L), medium (DLIR-M), and high (DLIR-H). The image quality was assessed quantitatively and qualitatively and compared between the different reconstruction algorithms. Inter-reader agreement was assessed by weighted kappa. RESULTS: DLIR-M and DLIR-H demonstrated lower image noise (p < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons), higher SNR of up to 82.9% (p < 0.001), and higher CNR of up to 53.3% (p < 0.001) compared to ASiR-V. DLIR-H outperformed other DLIR strengths (p ranging from < 0.001 to 0.016). DLIR-M outperformed DLIR-L (p < 0.001) and ASiR-V (p < 0.001). The distribution of reader scores for DLIR-M and DLIR-H shifted towards higher scores compared to DLIR-L and ASiR-V. There was a tendency towards higher scores with increasing DLIR strengths. There were fewer non-diagnostic CT series for DLIR-M and DLIR-H compared to ASiR-V and DLIR-L. No images were graded as non-diagnostic for DLIR-H regarding intracranial hemorrhage. The inter-reader agreement was fair-good between the second most and the less experienced reader, poor-moderate between the most and the less experienced reader, and poor-fair between the most and the second most experienced reader. CONCLUSION: The image quality of trauma head CT series reconstructed with DLIR outperformed those reconstructed with ASiR-V. In particular, DLIR-M and DLIR-H demonstrated significantly improved image quality and fewer non-diagnostic images. The improvement in qualitative image quality was greater for the second most and the less experienced readers compared to the most experienced reader. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10140-021-02012-2.