Impact of Noise Level on the Accuracy of Automated Measurement of CT Number Linearity on ACR CT and Computational Phantoms.
ACR CT Phantom
CT Number Linearity
Computational Phantom
Computed Tomography Scanner
Diagnostic Imaging
Image Quality Enhancement
Noise
Quality of Health Care
Journal
Journal of biomedical physics & engineering
ISSN: 2251-7200
Titre abrégé: J Biomed Phys Eng
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101589641
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
21
02
2023
accepted:
15
05
2023
medline:
23
8
2023
pubmed:
23
8
2023
entrez:
23
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Methods for segmentation, i.e., Full-segmentation (FS) and Segmentation-rotation (SR), are proposed for maintaining Computed Tomography (CT) number linearity. However, their effectiveness has not yet been tested against noise. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of noise on the accuracy of CT number linearity of the FS and SR methods on American College of Radiology (ACR) CT and computational phantoms. This experimental study utilized two phantoms, ACR CT and computational phantoms. An ACR CT phantom was scanned by a 128-slice CT scanner with various tube currents from 80 to 200 mA to acquire various noises, with other constant parameters. The computational phantom was added by different Gaussian noises between 20 and 120 Hounsfield Units (HU). The CT number linearity was measured by the FS and SR methods, and the accuracy of CT number linearity was computed on two phantoms. The two methods successfully segmented both phantoms at low noise, i.e., less than 60 HU. However, segmentation and measurement of CT number linearity are not accurate on a computational phantom using the FS method for more than 60-HU noise. The SR method is still accurate up to 120 HU of noise. The SR method outperformed the FS method to measure the CT number linearity due to its endurance in extreme noise.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Methods for segmentation, i.e., Full-segmentation (FS) and Segmentation-rotation (SR), are proposed for maintaining Computed Tomography (CT) number linearity. However, their effectiveness has not yet been tested against noise.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
This study aimed to evaluate the influence of noise on the accuracy of CT number linearity of the FS and SR methods on American College of Radiology (ACR) CT and computational phantoms.
Material and Methods
UNASSIGNED
This experimental study utilized two phantoms, ACR CT and computational phantoms. An ACR CT phantom was scanned by a 128-slice CT scanner with various tube currents from 80 to 200 mA to acquire various noises, with other constant parameters. The computational phantom was added by different Gaussian noises between 20 and 120 Hounsfield Units (HU). The CT number linearity was measured by the FS and SR methods, and the accuracy of CT number linearity was computed on two phantoms.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The two methods successfully segmented both phantoms at low noise, i.e., less than 60 HU. However, segmentation and measurement of CT number linearity are not accurate on a computational phantom using the FS method for more than 60-HU noise. The SR method is still accurate up to 120 HU of noise.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The SR method outperformed the FS method to measure the CT number linearity due to its endurance in extreme noise.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37609515
doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2302-1599
pii: JBPE-13-4
pmc: PMC10440409
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
353-362Informations de copyright
Copyright: © Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None
Références
Radiology. 2007 Jan;242(1):109-19
pubmed: 17185663
J Radiol Prot. 2019 Sep;39(3):783-793
pubmed: 31117064
Cancer Imaging. 2019 May 22;19(1):25
pubmed: 31113494
Eur Respir J. 2001 Oct;18(4):720-30
pubmed: 11716178
Eur Radiol Exp. 2021 Sep 10;5(1):39
pubmed: 34505172
Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2020 Sep 29;6(6):
pubmed: 35135906
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022 Aug 11;13:884306
pubmed: 36034436
J Biomed Phys Eng. 2022 Aug 01;12(4):359-368
pubmed: 36059282
Phys Med Biol. 1985 Mar;30(3):239-49
pubmed: 3983234
Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2022 Dec 16;9(1):
pubmed: 36541467
Med Phys. 2016 May;43(5):2251
pubmed: 27147337
Med Phys. 2018 Oct;45(10):4519-4528
pubmed: 30102414
J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Mar;28(2):e18
pubmed: 28028991
World Neurosurg. 2021 Jul;151:e599-e606
pubmed: 33933695
Lung. 2022 Aug;200(4):447-455
pubmed: 35751660
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2022 Jan;12(1):766-780
pubmed: 34993117
Radiographics. 1992 Sep;12(5):1041-6
pubmed: 1529128
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013 Aug;34(8):1506-12
pubmed: 23557960
Eur J Radiol. 2020 Nov;132:109321
pubmed: 33017775
Spine J. 2021 Oct;21(10):1738-1749
pubmed: 33722727
Nephrology (Carlton). 2017 Mar;22 Suppl 2:19-21
pubmed: 28429557
Med Phys. 2019 Jul;46(7):3013-3024
pubmed: 31004439
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Jan;21(1):174-178
pubmed: 31859454
Am J Vet Res. 2013 Sep;74(9):1239-46
pubmed: 23977897
World J Radiol. 2013 Nov 28;5(11):421-9
pubmed: 24349646
Radiology. 1990 Jun;175(3):729-31
pubmed: 2343122
J Imaging. 2022 Jun 21;8(7):
pubmed: 35877619
J Xray Sci Technol. 2019;27(3):397-416
pubmed: 31081796
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Mar;44(3):1033-1043
pubmed: 30600378
J Biomed Phys Eng. 2020 Jun 01;10(3):349-356
pubmed: 32637379
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Jul 08;17(4):320-333
pubmed: 27455491
J Thorac Imaging. 2013 Sep;28(5):264-5
pubmed: 23966091
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Jan;27(1):40-5
pubmed: 16418353
J Biomed Phys Eng. 2020 Apr 01;10(2):215-224
pubmed: 32337189
Acad Radiol. 2020 Jan;27(1):82-87
pubmed: 31818389