Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26611740›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2016

Volumetric CT with sparse detector arrays (and application to Si-strip photon counters).

A Sisniega, W Zbijewski, J W Stayman, J Xu, K Taguchi, E Fredenberg, Mats Lundqvist, J H Siewerdsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

A SisniegaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
W ZbijewskiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
J W StaymanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
J XuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
K TaguchiRussell H Morgan Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
E FredenbergPhilips Healthcare, Smidesvägen 5, 17141 Solna, Sweden.
Mats LundqvistPhilips Healthcare, Smidesvägen 5, 17141 Solna, Sweden.
J H SiewerdsenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.

Funding

Image Science for the New X-ray: Taking NEQ to TaskR01CA112163 · NCI · UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK · PI SIEWERDSEN, JEFFREY H · 2006 to 2014
$2.1M
Dual-Energy Cone-Beam Tomographic Imaging and Analysis for Rheumatoid ArthritisR21AR062293 · NIAMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SIEWERDSEN, JEFFREY H · 2013 to 2014
$379k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA112163NCI NIH HHS R01-CA-112163NIAMS NIH HHS R21 AR062293
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel x-ray medical imaging sensors, such as photon counting detectors (PCDs) and large area CCD and CMOS cameras can involve irregular and/or sparse sampling of the detector plane. Application of such detectors to CT involves undersampling that is markedly different from the commonly considered case of sparse angular sampling. This work investigates volumetric sampling in CT systems incorporating sparsely sampled detectors with axial and helical scan orbits and evaluates performance of model-based image reconstruction (MBIR) with spatially varying regularization in mitigating artifacts due to sparse detector sampling. Volumetric metrics of sampling density and uniformity were introduced. Penalized-likelihood MBIR with a spatially varying penalty that homogenized resolution by accounting for variations in local sampling density (i.e. detector gaps) was evaluated. The proposed methodology was tested in simulations and on an imaging bench based on a Si-strip PCD (total area 5 cm  ×  25 cm) consisting of an arrangement of line sensors separated by gaps of up to 2.5 mm. The bench was equipped with translation/rotation stages allowing a variety of scanning trajectories, ranging from a simple axial acquisition to helical scans with variable pitch. Statistical (spherical clutter) and anthropomorphic (hand) phantoms were considered. Image quality was compared to that obtained with a conventional uniform penalty in terms of structural similarity index (SSIM), image uniformity, spatial resolution, contrast, and noise. Scan trajectories with intermediate helical width (~10 mm longitudinal distance per 360° rotation) demonstrated optimal tradeoff between the average sampling density and the homogeneity of sampling throughout the volume. For a scan trajectory with 10.8 mm helical width, the spatially varying penalty resulted in significant visual reduction of sampling artifacts, confirmed by a 10% reduction in minimum SSIM (from 0.88 to 0.8) and a 40% reduction in the dispersion of SSIM in the volume compared to the constant penalty (both penalties applied at optimal regularization strength). Images of the spherical clutter and wrist phantoms confirmed the advantages of the spatially varying penalty, showing a 25% improvement in image uniformity and 1.8  ×  higher CNR (at matched spatial resolution) compared to the constant penalty. The studies elucidate the relationship between sampling in the detector plane, acquisition orbit, sampling of the reconstructed volume, and the resulting image quality. They also demonstrate the benefit of spatially varying regularization in MBIR for scenarios with irregular sampling patterns. Such findings are important and integral to the incorporation of a sparsely sampled Si-strip PCD in CT imaging.

Indexed as

PhotonsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedTomography, Spiral ComputedX-Rays

Identifiers

PMID26611740
PMCPMC5070652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.