Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33165728›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2020

New image-restoration method using a simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique: comparison with the Richardson-Lucy algorithm.

Kenya Murase

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Kenya MuraseDepartment of Medical Physics and Engineering, Faculty of Health Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan. murase@sahs.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We developed a new image-restoration method that incorporates the point spread function (PSF) into the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART-PSF). Additionally, through simulation studies, we investigated the usefulness of the method in comparison with the Richardson-Lucy (RL) algorithm. In the simulation studies, degraded images were generated by convolving magnetic resonance imaging-based brain images with PSF and adding Gaussian or Poisson noise to them to simulate various noise levels. The effects of the number of iterations N, noise, and PSF error on the processed images were quantitatively evaluated using the percent root mean square error (PRMSE) and mean structural similarity index (mSSIM). After applying the SART-PSF to images degraded using Gaussian noise, the PRMSE value and increase thereof, when N was increased, were smaller than those when using the RL algorithm. The mSSIM value was higher and its decrease upon increasing N was smaller than that of the RL algorithm. When Poisson noise was assumed, the differences in PRMSE and mSSIM between both methods were smaller than those when Gaussian noise was assumed. When the PSF error was negative, its effect on PRMSE and mSSIM was similar for both methods. However, when it was positive, the deterioration of these parameters for the SART-PSF was less than that for the RL algorithm in both the Gaussian and Poisson noise cases. The results suggest that the SART-PSF is more robust against noise and a PSF error than the RL algorithm and, thus, can be used as an alternative to the RL algorithm.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedComputer SimulationMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhantoms, ImagingPercent root mean square error (PRMSE)Point spread function (PSF)Richardson–Lucy (RL) algorithmSimultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART)Structural similarity index (SSIM)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.