Evaluation of deep-learning image reconstruction for chest CT examinations at two different dose levels.
chest
computed tomography
deep-learning image reconstruction
post-processing
ultra-low dose
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
revised:
17
11
2022
received:
07
04
2022
accepted:
29
11
2022
pubmed:
31
12
2022
medline:
21
3
2023
entrez:
30
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aims of the present study were to, for both a full-dose protocol and an ultra-low dose (ULD) protocol, compare the image quality of chest CT examinations reconstructed using TrueFidelity (Standard kernel) with corresponding examinations reconstructed using ASIR-V (Lung kernel) and to evaluate if post-processing using an edge-enhancement filter affects the noise level, spatial resolution and subjective image quality of clinical images reconstructed using TrueFidelity. A total of 25 patients were examined with both a full-dose protocol and an ULD protocol using a GE Revolution APEX CT system (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, USA). Three different reconstructions were included in the study: ASIR-V 40%, DLIR-H, and DLIR-H with additional post-processing using an edge-enhancement filter (DLIR-H + E2). Five observers assessed image quality in two separate visual grading characteristics (VGC) studies. The results from the studies were statistically analyzed using VGC Analyzer. Quantitative evaluations were based on determination of two-dimensional power spectrum (PS), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and spatial resolution in the reconstructed patient images. For both protocols, examinations reconstructed using TrueFidelity were statistically rated equal to or significantly higher than examinations reconstructed using ASIR-V 40%, but the ULD protocol benefitted more from TrueFidelity. In general, no differences in observer ratings were found between DLIR-H and DLIR-H + E2. For the three investigated image reconstruction methods, ASIR-V 40% showed highest noise and spatial resolution and DLIR-H the lowest, while the CNR was highest in DLIR-H and lowest in ASIR-V 40%. The use of TrueFidelity for image reconstruction resulted in higher ratings on subjective image quality than ASIR-V 40%. The benefit of using TrueFidelity was larger for the ULD protocol than for the full-dose protocol. Post-processing of the TrueFidelity images using an edge-enhancement filter resulted in higher image noise and spatial resolution but did not affect the subjective image quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36583696
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13871
pmc: PMC10018655
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13871Subventions
Organisme : The Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the country councils, the ALF-agreement
ID : ALFGBG-877491
Organisme : The Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the country councils, the ALF-agreement
ID : ALFGBG-960671
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016 Jun;169(1-4):46-53
pubmed: 26769908
Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332
pubmed: 18082557
Radiology. 2020 Dec;297(3):699-707
pubmed: 32990514
Invest Radiol. 2019 May;54(5):288-295
pubmed: 30570504
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010 Apr-May;139(1-3):153-8
pubmed: 20233755
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023 Mar;24(3):e13871
pubmed: 36583696
Med Phys. 2020 Sep;47(9):3961-3971
pubmed: 32506661
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):503-513
pubmed: 31995683
Eur J Radiol. 2021 Aug;141:109808
pubmed: 34120010
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2021 Oct 12;195(3-4):378-390
pubmed: 33940628
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
BMJ. 2019 Jan 2;364:k4931
pubmed: 30602590
Phys Med. 2020 Aug;76:28-37
pubmed: 32574999
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):102-8
pubmed: 15933089
Radiology. 2010 Oct;257(1):158-66
pubmed: 20851940
Radiology. 2015 Aug;276(2):339-57
pubmed: 26203706
Eur Radiol. 2020 Jul;30(7):3951-3959
pubmed: 32100091
Med Phys. 2016 Oct;43(10):5330
pubmed: 27782718
Br J Radiol. 2021 Oct 1;94(1126):20210406
pubmed: 33989035
Med Phys. 2012 Oct;39(10):6048-55
pubmed: 23039643
Korean J Radiol. 2021 Jan;22(1):131-138
pubmed: 32729277
Clin Radiol. 2021 Feb;76(2):155.e15-155.e23
pubmed: 33220941
Ann ICRP. 1991;21(1-3):1-201
pubmed: 2053748
Br J Radiol. 2007 Mar;80(951):169-76
pubmed: 16854962
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Nov;95(44):e5309
pubmed: 27858910
JAMA. 2012 Jun 13;307(22):2400-9
pubmed: 22692172
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2021 Oct 12;195(3-4):372-377
pubmed: 33683321
Phys Med. 2021 Jan;81:86-93
pubmed: 33445125
Invest Radiol. 2020 Jan;55(1):8-19
pubmed: 31567618
Radiology. 2022 Apr;303(1):202-212
pubmed: 35040674
Radiology. 2020 May;295(2):418-427
pubmed: 32181730
Eur Radiol. 2019 May;29(5):2185-2195
pubmed: 30377791