Comparison of different iterative CT reconstruction techniques and filtered back projection for assessment of the medial clavicular epiphysis in forensic age estimation.
Adolescent
Adult
Age Determination by Skeleton
/ methods
Algorithms
Clavicle
/ diagnostic imaging
Epiphyses
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Male
Osteogenesis
Radiation Dosage
Retrospective Studies
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
/ methods
Young Adult
CT
Clavicle
Forensic age estimation
Iterative reconstruction
Journal
International journal of legal medicine
ISSN: 1437-1596
Titre abrégé: Int J Legal Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9101456
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
08
09
2019
accepted:
13
11
2019
pubmed:
28
11
2019
medline:
15
9
2020
entrez:
28
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the impact of iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection (FBP) on image quality in computed tomography (CT)-based forensic age estimation of the medial clavicular epiphysis. CT of the clavicle was performed in 19 patients due to forensic reasons (70 mAs/140 kVp). Raw data were reconstructed with FBP and with an iterative algorithm at level 4 and 6. Clavicular ossification stage was determined by two radiologists in consensus, firstly on FBP reconstructed images and secondly after reviewing all reconstructions including iDose 4 and 6. In addition, the 3 reconstructions were compared regarding artefacts and delineation of the meta-/epiphyseal interface. Quantitative image noise was measured. Quantitative noise was lower in iDose 6 reconstructed images than in FBP (P < 0.042), but not significantly lower between iDose 4 and FBP (P = 0.127). Side by side comparison revealed lesser qualitative image noise on both iDose reconstructed images than for FBP. The meta-/epiphyseal interface delineation was rated better on both iDose levels than with FBP. In 3 of 19 patients, the clavicular ossification stage was reclassified after iterative reconstructions had been additionally reviewed. Using iterative CT reconstruction algorithms, a reduction of image noise and an enhancement of image quality regarding the meta-/epiphyseal clavicular interface can be achieved. The study highlights the importance of image standardization as variation of reconstruction technique has impact on forensic age estimation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31773319
doi: 10.1007/s00414-019-02214-x
pii: 10.1007/s00414-019-02214-x
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
355-361Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):621-7
pubmed: 22358002
Int J Legal Med. 2017 Sep;131(5):1391-1397
pubmed: 28608146
Skeletal Radiol. 1996 Jul;25(5):467-70
pubmed: 8837279
Int J Legal Med. 2006 Jan;120(1):15-7
pubmed: 16012831
Eur Radiol. 2011 Dec;21(12):2521-6
pubmed: 21822785
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2020 May - Jun;14(3):219-225
pubmed: 31023632
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 Apr;29(4):727-31
pubmed: 18223095
Int J Legal Med. 2017 Jan;131(1):217-224
pubmed: 27658782
Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2014 Jun;10(2):163-9
pubmed: 24277267
Int J Legal Med. 2018 May;132(3):791-798
pubmed: 28717963
Int J Legal Med. 2004 Feb;118(1):5-8
pubmed: 14534796
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2019 May - Jun;13(3):3-10
pubmed: 31014928
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Jul 11;113(27-28):488
pubmed: 27476715
Eur Radiol. 2011 Mar;21(3):627-35
pubmed: 21053003
Radiology. 2004 Mar;230(3):619-28
pubmed: 14739312
Int J Legal Med. 2010 Jul;124(4):321-5
pubmed: 20354711
Radiology. 2010 Oct;257(1):158-66
pubmed: 20851940
Radiology. 2010 Nov;257(2):373-83
pubmed: 20829535
Int J Legal Med. 2018 Sep;132(5):1415-1425
pubmed: 29713801
Int J Legal Med. 2005 May;119(3):142-5
pubmed: 15711799
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Oct 28;13(11):
pubmed: 27801855
Int J Legal Med. 2010 Mar;124(2):149-54
pubmed: 20013127
Acta Radiol. 2014 Apr;55(3):335-44
pubmed: 23897308
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Mar;11(3):271-278
pubmed: 24589403
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Feb;39(2):385-391
pubmed: 29269403
Int J Legal Med. 2019 Sep;133(5):1517-1528
pubmed: 31104134
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 Jul 08;14(4):4347
pubmed: 23835395
Eur Radiol. 2012 Feb;22(2):295-301
pubmed: 21927791
Int J Legal Med. 2018 Mar;132(2):629-636
pubmed: 28944440
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015 Dec;19(5):438-45
pubmed: 26696082
Int J Legal Med. 2019 May;133(3):931-934
pubmed: 30783754
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2014;58(3):283-90
pubmed: 24581030
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Nov-Dec;27(10):2221-5
pubmed: 17110699
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Oct;35(10):1870-6
pubmed: 25059701