Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26894795›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2016

Reconstruction of difference in sequential CT studies using penalized likelihood estimation.

A Pourmorteza, H Dang, J H Siewerdsen, J W Stayman

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Direct reconstruction of anatomical change in low-dose lung nodule surveillance.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Low-Dose CT Perfusion of the Liver using Reconstruction of Difference.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2018
    Article
  8. Prospective Image Quality Analysis and Control for Prior-Image-Based Reconstruction of Low-Dose CT.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2018
    Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

A PourmortezaDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
H DangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
J H SiewerdsenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
J W StaymanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.

Funding

Intraoperative Imaging for Guidance, Patient Safety, and OR Quality AssuranceR01EB017226 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SIEWERDSEN, JEFFREY H · 2014 to 2017
$2.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017226
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Characterization of anatomical change and other differences is important in sequential computed tomography (CT) imaging, where a high-fidelity patient-specific prior image is typically present, but is not used, in the reconstruction of subsequent anatomical states. Here, we introduce a penalized likelihood (PL) method called reconstruction of difference (RoD) to directly reconstruct a difference image volume using both the current projection data and the (unregistered) prior image integrated into the forward model for the measurement data. The algorithm utilizes an alternating minimization to find both the registration and reconstruction estimates. This formulation allows direct control over the image properties of the difference image, permitting regularization strategies that inhibit noise and structural differences due to inconsistencies between the prior image and the current data. Additionally, if the change is known to be local, RoD allows local acquisition and reconstruction, as opposed to traditional model-based approaches that require a full support field of view (or other modifications). We compared the performance of RoD to a standard PL algorithm, in simulation studies and using test-bench cone-beam CT data. The performances of local and global RoD approaches were similar, with local RoD providing a significant computational speedup. In comparison across a range of data with differing fidelity, the local RoD approach consistently showed lower error (with respect to a truth image) than PL in both noisy data and sparsely sampled projection scenarios. In a study of the prior image registration performance of RoD, a clinically reasonable capture ranges were demonstrated. Lastly, the registration algorithm had a broad capture range and the error for reconstruction of CT data was 35% and 20% less than filtered back-projection for RoD and PL, respectively. The RoD has potential for delivering high-quality difference images in a range of sequential clinical scenarios including image-guided surgeries and treatments where accurate and quantitative assessments of anatomical change is desired.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPhantoms, ImagingCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLikelihood Functions

Identifiers

PMID26894795
PMCPMC4948746

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.