Cargando…

Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the image quality and accurate bone mineral density (BMD) on quantitative CT (QCT) for osteoporosis screening by deep-learning image reconstruction (DLIR) based on a multi-phantom and patient study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-contrast spatial resolution, low-c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yali, Jiang, Yaojun, Yu, Xi, Ren, Binbin, Wang, Chunyu, Chen, Sihui, Ma, Duoshan, Su, Danyang, Liu, Huilong, Ren, Xiangyang, Yang, Xiaopeng, Gao, Jianbo, Wu, Yan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9403270/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36034436
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.884306
_version_ 1784773337000443904
author Li, Yali
Jiang, Yaojun
Yu, Xi
Ren, Binbin
Wang, Chunyu
Chen, Sihui
Ma, Duoshan
Su, Danyang
Liu, Huilong
Ren, Xiangyang
Yang, Xiaopeng
Gao, Jianbo
Wu, Yan
author_facet Li, Yali
Jiang, Yaojun
Yu, Xi
Ren, Binbin
Wang, Chunyu
Chen, Sihui
Ma, Duoshan
Su, Danyang
Liu, Huilong
Ren, Xiangyang
Yang, Xiaopeng
Gao, Jianbo
Wu, Yan
author_sort Li, Yali
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the image quality and accurate bone mineral density (BMD) on quantitative CT (QCT) for osteoporosis screening by deep-learning image reconstruction (DLIR) based on a multi-phantom and patient study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-contrast spatial resolution, low-contrast detectability, modulation function test (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and image noise were evaluated for physical image quality on Caphan 500 phantom. Three calcium hydroxyapatite (HA) inserts were used for accurate BMD measurement on European Spine Phantom (ESP). CT images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-veo 50% (ASiR-V50%), and three levels of DLIR(L/M/H). Subjective evaluation of the image high-contrast spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability were compared visually by qualified radiologists, whilst the statistical difference in the objective evaluation of the image high-contrast spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability, image noise, and relative measurement error were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Cohen’s kappa coefficient (k) was performed to determine the interobserver agreement in qualitative evaluation between two radiologists. RESULTS: Overall, for three levels of DLIR, 50% MTF was about 4.50 (lp/cm), better than FBP (4.12 lp/cm) and ASiR-V50% (4.00 lp/cm); the 2 mm low-contrast object was clearly resolved at a 0.5% contrast level, while 3mm at FBP and ASiR-V50%. As the strength level decreased and radiation dose increased, DLIR at three levels showed a higher NPS peak frequency and lower noise level, leading to leftward and rightward shifts, respectively. Measured L1, L2, and L3 were slightly lower than that of nominal HA inserts (44.8, 95.9, 194.9 versus 50.2, 100.6, 199.2mg/cm(3)) with a relative measurement error of 9.84%, 4.08%, and 2.60%. Coefficients of variance for the L1, L2, and L3 HA inserts were 1.51%, 1.41%, and 1.18%. DLIR-M and DLIR-H scored significantly better than ASiR-V50% in image noise (4.83 ± 0.34, 4.50 ± 0.50 versus 4.17 ± 0.37), image contrast (4.67 ± 0.73, 4.50 ± 0.70 versus 3.80 ± 0.99), small structure visibility (4.83 ± 0.70, 4.17 ± 0.73 versus 3.83 ± 1.05), image sharpness (3.83 ± 1.12, 3.53 ± 0.90 versus 3.27 ± 1.16), and artifacts (3.83 ± 0.90, 3.42 ± 0.37 versus 3.10 ± 0.83). The CT value, image noise, contrast noise ratio, and image artifacts in DLIR-M and DLIR-H outperformed ASiR-V50% and FBP (P<0.001), whilst it showed no statistically significant between DLIR-L and ASiR-V50% (P>0.05). The prevalence of osteoporosis was 74 (24.67%) in women and 49 (11.79%) in men, whilst the osteoporotic vertebral fracture rate was 26 (8.67%) in women and (5.29%) in men. CONCLUSION: Image quality with DLIR was high-qualified without affecting the accuracy of BMD measurement. It has a potential clinical utility in osteoporosis screening.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9403270
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94032702022-08-26 Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study Li, Yali Jiang, Yaojun Yu, Xi Ren, Binbin Wang, Chunyu Chen, Sihui Ma, Duoshan Su, Danyang Liu, Huilong Ren, Xiangyang Yang, Xiaopeng Gao, Jianbo Wu, Yan Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Endocrinology BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the image quality and accurate bone mineral density (BMD) on quantitative CT (QCT) for osteoporosis screening by deep-learning image reconstruction (DLIR) based on a multi-phantom and patient study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-contrast spatial resolution, low-contrast detectability, modulation function test (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and image noise were evaluated for physical image quality on Caphan 500 phantom. Three calcium hydroxyapatite (HA) inserts were used for accurate BMD measurement on European Spine Phantom (ESP). CT images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-veo 50% (ASiR-V50%), and three levels of DLIR(L/M/H). Subjective evaluation of the image high-contrast spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability were compared visually by qualified radiologists, whilst the statistical difference in the objective evaluation of the image high-contrast spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability, image noise, and relative measurement error were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Cohen’s kappa coefficient (k) was performed to determine the interobserver agreement in qualitative evaluation between two radiologists. RESULTS: Overall, for three levels of DLIR, 50% MTF was about 4.50 (lp/cm), better than FBP (4.12 lp/cm) and ASiR-V50% (4.00 lp/cm); the 2 mm low-contrast object was clearly resolved at a 0.5% contrast level, while 3mm at FBP and ASiR-V50%. As the strength level decreased and radiation dose increased, DLIR at three levels showed a higher NPS peak frequency and lower noise level, leading to leftward and rightward shifts, respectively. Measured L1, L2, and L3 were slightly lower than that of nominal HA inserts (44.8, 95.9, 194.9 versus 50.2, 100.6, 199.2mg/cm(3)) with a relative measurement error of 9.84%, 4.08%, and 2.60%. Coefficients of variance for the L1, L2, and L3 HA inserts were 1.51%, 1.41%, and 1.18%. DLIR-M and DLIR-H scored significantly better than ASiR-V50% in image noise (4.83 ± 0.34, 4.50 ± 0.50 versus 4.17 ± 0.37), image contrast (4.67 ± 0.73, 4.50 ± 0.70 versus 3.80 ± 0.99), small structure visibility (4.83 ± 0.70, 4.17 ± 0.73 versus 3.83 ± 1.05), image sharpness (3.83 ± 1.12, 3.53 ± 0.90 versus 3.27 ± 1.16), and artifacts (3.83 ± 0.90, 3.42 ± 0.37 versus 3.10 ± 0.83). The CT value, image noise, contrast noise ratio, and image artifacts in DLIR-M and DLIR-H outperformed ASiR-V50% and FBP (P<0.001), whilst it showed no statistically significant between DLIR-L and ASiR-V50% (P>0.05). The prevalence of osteoporosis was 74 (24.67%) in women and 49 (11.79%) in men, whilst the osteoporotic vertebral fracture rate was 26 (8.67%) in women and (5.29%) in men. CONCLUSION: Image quality with DLIR was high-qualified without affecting the accuracy of BMD measurement. It has a potential clinical utility in osteoporosis screening. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9403270/ /pubmed/36034436 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.884306 Text en Copyright © 2022 Li, Jiang, Yu, Ren, Wang, Chen, Ma, Su, Liu, Ren, Yang, Gao and Wu https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Endocrinology
Li, Yali
Jiang, Yaojun
Yu, Xi
Ren, Binbin
Wang, Chunyu
Chen, Sihui
Ma, Duoshan
Su, Danyang
Liu, Huilong
Ren, Xiangyang
Yang, Xiaopeng
Gao, Jianbo
Wu, Yan
Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study
title Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study
title_full Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study
title_fullStr Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study
title_full_unstemmed Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study
title_short Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study
title_sort deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative ct: a phantom-patient study
topic Endocrinology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9403270/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36034436
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.884306
work_keys_str_mv AT liyali deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT jiangyaojun deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT yuxi deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT renbinbin deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT wangchunyu deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT chensihui deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT maduoshan deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT sudanyang deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT liuhuilong deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT renxiangyang deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT yangxiaopeng deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT gaojianbo deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy
AT wuyan deeplearningimagereconstructionforimagequalityevaluationandaccuratebonemineraldensitymeasurementonquantitativectaphantompatientstudy