The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Portrait of Anders Tingberg. Photo

Anders Tingberg

Associate professor

Portrait of Anders Tingberg. Photo

Evaluation of image quality for 7 iterative reconstruction algorithms in chest computed tomography imaging : A phantom study

Author

  • Kristin Jensen
  • Guro Hagemo
  • Anders Tingberg
  • Claudius Steinfeldt-Reisse
  • Georg Karl Mynarek
  • Rodriguez Jezabel Rivero
  • Erik Fosse
  • Anne Catrine Martinsen

Summary, in English

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the image quality of 7 iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms in comparison to filtered back-projection (FBP) algorithm. Methods An anthropomorphic chest phantom was scanned on 4 computed tomography scanners and reconstructed with FBP and IR algorithms. Image quality of anatomical details - large/medium-sized pulmonary vessels, small pulmonary vessels, thoracic wall, and small and large lesions - was scored. Furthermore, general impression of noise, image contrast, and artifacts were evaluated. Visual grading regression was used to analyze the data. Standard deviations were measured, and the noise power spectrum was calculated. Results Iterative reconstruction algorithms showed significantly better results when compared with FBP for these criteria (regression coefficients/P values in parentheses): vessels (FIRST: -1.8/0.05, AIDR Enhanced: <-2.3/0.01, Veo: <-0.1/0.03, ADMIRE: <-2.1/0.04), lesions (FIRST: <-2.6/0.01, AIDR Enhanced: <-1.9/0.03, IMR1: <-2.7/0.01, Veo: <-2.4/0.02, ADMIRE: -2.3/0.02), image noise (FIRST: <-3.2/0.004, AIDR Enhanced: <-3.5/0.002, IMR1: <-6.1/0.001, iDose: <-2.3/0.02, Veo: <-3.4/0.002, ADMIRE: <-3.5/0.02), image contrast (FIRST: -2.3/0.01, AIDR Enhanced: -2.5/0.01, IMR1: -3.7/0.001, iDose: -2.1/0.02), and artifacts (FIRST: <-3.8/0.004, AIDR Enhanced: <-2.7/0.02, IMR1: <-2.6/0.02, iDose: -2.1/0.04, Veo: -2.6/0.02). The iDose algorithm was the only IR algorithm that maintained the noise frequencies. Conclusions Iterative reconstruction algorithms performed differently on all evaluated criteria, showing the importance of careful implementation of algorithms for diagnostic purposes.

Department/s

  • Medical Radiation Physics, Malmö

Publishing year

2020

Language

English

Pages

673-680

Publication/Series

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volume

44

Issue

5

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Topic

  • Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Keywords

  • computed tomography
  • image reconstruction
  • radiologic phantom
  • thorax

Status

Published

Research group

  • Medical Radiation Physics, Malmö

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 0363-8715