Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34104875›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of academic radiology2019

Counter examples for unmatched projector/backprojector in an iterative algorithm.

Gengsheng L Zeng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of academic radiology, 2019. 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.

Gengsheng L ZengDepartment of Engineering, Weber State University, 1447 Edvalson Street, Ogden, UT 84408, USA.

Funding

Reducing Metal Artifacts in Clinical X-Ray CT via Image Reconstruction TechniquesR15EB024283 · NIBIB · WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ZENG, GENGSHENG · 2018 to 2022
$644k
NIBIB NIH HHS R15 EB024283
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is rather controversial whether it is justified to use an unmatched projector/backprojector pair in an iterative image reconstruction algorithm. One common concern of using an unmatched projector/backprojector pair is that the optimal solution cannot be reached. This concern is misleading and must be clarified. We define a figure-of-merit in the image domain as the distance between the reconstructed image and the true image, as the normalized mean-squared-error (NMSE). The NMSE is used to determine whether an unmatched matched projector/backprojector pair can provide a better image than a matched projector/backprojector pair. Hot and cold lesion's contrast-to-noise ratio is also used as an alternative secondary figure-of-merit for algorithm comparison. Computer-generated counterexamples are used to test the performance for matched and unmatched projection/backprojection pairs for different reconstruction algorithms. The projectors are ray-driven, and the backprojectors are ray-driven and pixel-driven. For the attenuation-free data examples, the unmatched pixel-driven backprojector outperforms the matched ray-driven backprojector. For the attenuated data example, the matched ray-driven backprojector performs better. The ray-driven backprojector can be slightly improved by using an attenuation coefficient that is larger than the true one; in this case the backprojector becomes unmatched. Unmatched projector/backprojector pairs are fairly flexible. If the backprojector is properly chosen, good results can be obtained. However, we have not found a general rule to select a good backprojector.

Indexed as

Iterative algorithmsProjector/backprojector pairTomographic image reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID34104875
PMCPMC8184118

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.