ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2018
Prospective Image Quality Analysis and Control for Prior-Image-Based Reconstruction of Low-Dose CT.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metric-guided regularisation parameter selection for statistical iterative reconstruction in computed tomography.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Regularization strategies in statistical image reconstruction of low-dose x-ray CT: A review.Medical physics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePrior-image-based reconstruction (PIBR) is a powerful tool for low-dose CT, however, the nonlinear behavior of such approaches are generally difficult to predict and control. Similarly, traditional image quality metrics do not capture potential biases exhibited in PIBR images. In this work, we identify a new bias metric and construct an analytical framework for prospectively predicting and controlling the relationship between prior image regularization strength and this bias in a reliable and quantitative fashion.
methodsBias associated with prior image regularization in PIBR can be described as the fraction of actual contrast change (between the prior image and current anatomy) that appears in the reconstruction. Using local approximation of the nonlinear PIBR objective, we develop an analytical relationship between local regularization, fractional contrast reconstructed, and true contrast change. This analytic tool allows prediction bias properties in a reconstructed PIBR image and includes the dependencies on the data acquisition, patient anatomy and change, and reconstruction parameters. Predictions are leveraged to provide reliable and repeatable image properties for varying data fidelity in simulation and physical cadaver experiments.
resultsThe proposed analytical approach permits accurate prediction of reconstructed contrast relative to a gold standard based on exhaustive search based on numerous iterative reconstructions. The framework is used to control regularization parameters to enforce consistent change reconstructions over varying fluence levels and varying numbers of projection angles - enabling bias properties that are less location- and acquisition-dependent.
conclusionsWhile PIBR methods have demonstrated a substantial ability for dose reduction, image properties associated with those images have been difficult to express and quantify using traditional metrics. The novel framework presented in this work not only quantifies this bias in an intuitive fashion, but it gives a way to predict and control the bias. Reliable and predictable reconstruction methods are a requirement for clinical imaging systems and the proposed framework is an important step translating PIBR methods to clinical application.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.