ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023
Multislice input for 2D and 3D residual convolutional neural network noise reduction in CT.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of a novel deep learning reconstruction algorithm on image quality in ultralow-dose CT: a quantitative phantom study.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Pushing the limits of spatial resolution in clinical PCD-CT using a dedicated high-resolution convolutional neural network (HR-CNN).Medical physics · 2026Article
- Benchmarking deep learning-based low-dose CT image denoising algorithms.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Image quality evaluation in deep-learning-based CT noise reduction using virtual imaging trial methods: Contrast-dependent spatial resolution.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Self-trained deep convolutional neural network for noise reduction in CT.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Deep convolutional neural network (CNN)-based methods are increasingly used for reducing image noise in computed tomography (CT). Current attempts at CNN denoising are based on 2D or 3D CNN models with a single- or multiple-slice input. Our work aims to investigate if the multiple-slice input improves the denoising performance compared with the single-slice input and if a 3D network architecture is better than a 2D version at utilizing the multislice input. Approach: Two categories of network architectures can be used for the multislice input. First, multislice images can be stacked channel-wise as the multichannel input to a 2D CNN model. Second, multislice images can be employed as the 3D volumetric input to a 3D CNN model, in which the 3D convolution layers are adopted. We make performance comparisons among 2D CNN models with one, three, and seven input slices and two versions of 3D CNN models with seven input slices and one or three output slices. Evaluation was performed on liver CT images using three quantitative metrics with full-dose images as reference. Visual assessment was made by an experienced radiologist. Results: When the input channels of the 2D CNN model increases from one to three to seven, a trend of improved performance was observed. Comparing the three models with the seven-slice input, the 3D CNN model with a one-slice output outperforms the other models in terms of noise texture and homogeneity in liver parenchyma as well as subjective visualization of vessels. Conclusions: We conclude the that multislice input is an effective strategy for improving performance for 2D deep CNN denoising models. The pure 3D CNN model tends to have a better performance than the other models in terms of continuity across axial slices, but the difference was not significant compared with the 2D CNN model with the same number of slices as the input.
Indexed as
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.