Effect of a new deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for abdominal computed tomography imaging on image quality and dose reduction compared with two iterative reconstruction algorithms: a phantom study.
Task-based image quality assessment
computed tomography scan (CT scan)
deep learning image reconstruction algorithm
iterative reconstruction algorithm
Journal
Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery
ISSN: 2223-4292
Titre abrégé: Quant Imaging Med Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101577942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
24
02
2021
accepted:
03
06
2021
entrez:
7
1
2022
pubmed:
8
1
2022
medline:
8
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
New reconstruction algorithms based on deep learning have been developed to correct the image texture changes related to the use of iterative reconstruction algorithms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new deep learning image reconstruction [Advanced intelligent Clear-IQ Engine (AiCE)] algorithm on image-quality and dose reduction compared to a hybrid iterative reconstruction (AIDR 3D) algorithm and a model-based iterative reconstruction (FIRST) algorithm. Acquisitions were carried out using the ACR 464 phantom (and its body ring) at six dose levels (volume computed tomography dose index 15/10/7.5/5/2.5/1 mGy). Raw data were reconstructed using three levels (Mild/Standard/Strong) of AIDR 3D, of FIRST and AiCE. Noise-power-spectrum (NPS) and task-based transfer function (TTF) were computed. Detectability index was computed to model the detection of a small calcification (1.5-mm diameter and 500 HU) and a large mass in the liver (25-mm diameter and 120 HU). NPS peaks were lower with AiCE than with AIDR 3D (-41%±6% for all levels) or FIRST (-15%±6% for Strong level and -41%±11% for both other levels). The average NPS spatial frequency was lower with AICE than AIDR 3D (-9%±2% using Mild and -3%±2% using Strong) but higher than FIRST for Standard (6%±3%) and Strong (25%±3%) levels. For acrylic insert, values of TTF at 50 percent were higher with AICE than AIDR 3D and FIRST, except for Mild level (-6%±6% and -13%±3%, respectively). For bone insert, values of TTF at 50 percent were higher with AICE than AIDR 3D but lower than FIRST (-19%±14%). For both simulated lesions, detectability index values were higher with AICE than AIDR 3D and FIRST (except for Strong level and for the small feature; -21%±14%). Using the Standard level, dose could be reduced by -79% for the small calcification and -57% for the large mass using AICE compared to AIDR 3D. The new deep learning image reconstruction algorithm AiCE generates an image-quality with less noise and/or less smudged/smooth images and a higher detectability than the AIDR 3D or FIRST algorithms. The outcomes of our phantom study suggest a good potential of dose reduction using AiCE but it should be confirmed clinically in patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
New reconstruction algorithms based on deep learning have been developed to correct the image texture changes related to the use of iterative reconstruction algorithms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new deep learning image reconstruction [Advanced intelligent Clear-IQ Engine (AiCE)] algorithm on image-quality and dose reduction compared to a hybrid iterative reconstruction (AIDR 3D) algorithm and a model-based iterative reconstruction (FIRST) algorithm.
METHODS
METHODS
Acquisitions were carried out using the ACR 464 phantom (and its body ring) at six dose levels (volume computed tomography dose index 15/10/7.5/5/2.5/1 mGy). Raw data were reconstructed using three levels (Mild/Standard/Strong) of AIDR 3D, of FIRST and AiCE. Noise-power-spectrum (NPS) and task-based transfer function (TTF) were computed. Detectability index was computed to model the detection of a small calcification (1.5-mm diameter and 500 HU) and a large mass in the liver (25-mm diameter and 120 HU).
RESULTS
RESULTS
NPS peaks were lower with AiCE than with AIDR 3D (-41%±6% for all levels) or FIRST (-15%±6% for Strong level and -41%±11% for both other levels). The average NPS spatial frequency was lower with AICE than AIDR 3D (-9%±2% using Mild and -3%±2% using Strong) but higher than FIRST for Standard (6%±3%) and Strong (25%±3%) levels. For acrylic insert, values of TTF at 50 percent were higher with AICE than AIDR 3D and FIRST, except for Mild level (-6%±6% and -13%±3%, respectively). For bone insert, values of TTF at 50 percent were higher with AICE than AIDR 3D but lower than FIRST (-19%±14%). For both simulated lesions, detectability index values were higher with AICE than AIDR 3D and FIRST (except for Strong level and for the small feature; -21%±14%). Using the Standard level, dose could be reduced by -79% for the small calcification and -57% for the large mass using AICE compared to AIDR 3D.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The new deep learning image reconstruction algorithm AiCE generates an image-quality with less noise and/or less smudged/smooth images and a higher detectability than the AIDR 3D or FIRST algorithms. The outcomes of our phantom study suggest a good potential of dose reduction using AiCE but it should be confirmed clinically in patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34993074
doi: 10.21037/qims-21-215
pii: qims-12-01-229
pmc: PMC8666764
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
229-243Informations de copyright
2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-21-215). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Eur Radiol. 2019 Nov;29(11):6163-6171
pubmed: 30976831
Eur Radiol. 2020 Feb;30(2):1075-1078
pubmed: 31506818
Med Phys. 2007 Nov;34(11):4526-44
pubmed: 18072519
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018 May;99(5):311-320
pubmed: 29396085
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Mar;214(3):566-573
pubmed: 31967501
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jul;199(1):8-18
pubmed: 22733888
Phys Med. 2021 Jan;81:86-93
pubmed: 33445125
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Aug 04;10(8):
pubmed: 32759874
Int J Stroke. 2021 Aug;16(6):692-700
pubmed: 33143553
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1997 Sep;14(9):2420-42
pubmed: 9291611
Med Phys. 2020 Apr;47(4):2023-2037
pubmed: 31981214
Radiol Artif Intell. 2019 Oct 09;1(6):e180011
pubmed: 33937803
Radiology. 2015 Aug;276(2):339-57
pubmed: 26203706
Eur Radiol. 2020 Jul;30(7):3951-3959
pubmed: 32100091
Radiology. 2015 Aug;276(2):499-506
pubmed: 25811326
Med Phys. 2015 Jan;42(1):314-23
pubmed: 25563271
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Dec;81(12):4185-95
pubmed: 22883532
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019 Feb;100(2):63-64
pubmed: 30733022
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Aug;97(34):e11857
pubmed: 30142778
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Aug 7;59(15):4047-64
pubmed: 24990844
Opt Express. 2003 Mar 10;11(5):460-75
pubmed: 19461753
Med Phys. 2018 Jun 22;:
pubmed: 29933508
Phys Med. 2015 Dec;31(8):823-843
pubmed: 26459319
Phys Med. 2017 Sep;41:58-70
pubmed: 28583291
Eur J Radiol. 2020 Dec;133:109349
pubmed: 33152626
Sci Rep. 2018 Dec 7;8(1):17734
pubmed: 30531988
Radiology. 2021 Jan;298(1):180-188
pubmed: 33201790
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021 Jan;11(1):392-401
pubmed: 33392038
Med Phys. 2012 Oct;39(10):6048-55
pubmed: 23039643
Eur Radiol. 2020 Jan;30(1):487-500
pubmed: 31359122
Med Phys. 2020 Sep;47(9):3961-3971
pubmed: 32506661
Med Phys. 2017 Oct;44(10):e339-e352
pubmed: 29027235
Med Phys. 2015 Aug;42(8):4941-53
pubmed: 26233220
Eur Radiol. 2019 Aug;29(8):4016-4025
pubmed: 30701327
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jun;73(6):665-670
pubmed: 30665773
Radiology. 2015 Jun;275(3):725-34
pubmed: 25686365
Science. 1981 Oct 2;214(4516):93-4
pubmed: 7280685
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Dec;109:124-129
pubmed: 30527293
Eur Radiol. 2019 May;29(5):2185-2195
pubmed: 30377791
Radiology. 2018 Nov;289(2):443-454
pubmed: 30015591
Med Phys. 2012 Jul;39(7):4115-22
pubmed: 22830744
Med Phys. 2019 Nov;46(11):4763-4776
pubmed: 31132144
Phys Med. 2020 Aug;76:28-37
pubmed: 32574999
Med Phys. 2019 Nov;46(11):e735-e756
pubmed: 31408540
Eur Radiol. 2019 Oct;29(10):5322-5329
pubmed: 30963270
Acad Radiol. 2020 Jan;27(1):82-87
pubmed: 31818389