LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,089
تعداد مقالات10,007
تعداد مشاهده مقاله26,734,236
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله7,338,550
Anam, Choirul, Amilia, Riska, Naufal, Ariij, Sutanto, Heri, Dwihapsari, Yanurita, Fujibuchi, Toshioh, Dougherty, Geoff. (1402). Impact of Noise Level on the Accuracy of Automated Measurement of CT Number Linearity on ACR CT and Computational Phantoms. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 13(4), 353-362. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2302-1599
Choirul Anam; Riska Amilia; Ariij Naufal; Heri Sutanto; Yanurita Dwihapsari; Toshioh Fujibuchi; Geoff Dougherty. "Impact of Noise Level on the Accuracy of Automated Measurement of CT Number Linearity on ACR CT and Computational Phantoms". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 13, 4, 1402, 353-362. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2302-1599
Anam, Choirul, Amilia, Riska, Naufal, Ariij, Sutanto, Heri, Dwihapsari, Yanurita, Fujibuchi, Toshioh, Dougherty, Geoff. (1402). 'Impact of Noise Level on the Accuracy of Automated Measurement of CT Number Linearity on ACR CT and Computational Phantoms', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 13(4), pp. 353-362. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2302-1599
Anam, Choirul, Amilia, Riska, Naufal, Ariij, Sutanto, Heri, Dwihapsari, Yanurita, Fujibuchi, Toshioh, Dougherty, Geoff. Impact of Noise Level on the Accuracy of Automated Measurement of CT Number Linearity on ACR CT and Computational Phantoms. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1402; 13(4): 353-362. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2302-1599

Impact of Noise Level on the Accuracy of Automated Measurement of CT Number Linearity on ACR CT and Computational Phantoms

Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
مقاله 7، دوره 13، شماره 4، مهر و آبان 2023، صفحه 353-362    اصل مقاله (1.25 M)
نوع مقاله: Original Research
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2302-1599
نویسندگان
Choirul Anam* 1؛ Riska Amilia1؛ Ariij Naufal1؛ Heri Sutanto1؛ Yanurita Dwihapsari2؛ Toshioh Fujibuchi3؛ Geoff Dougherty4
1Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Jl. Prof Soedarto, SH Tembalang, Semarang 50275, Central Java, Indonesia
2Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Data Analytics, Institute Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Kampus ITS Sukolilo – Surabaya 60111, East Java, Indonesia
3Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
4Department of Applied Physics and Medical Imaging, California State University Channel Islands, Camarillo, CA 93012, USA
چکیده
Background: Methods for segmentation, i.e., Full-segmentation (FS) and Segmentation-rotation (SR), are proposed for maintaining Computed Tomography (CT) number linearity. However, their effectiveness has not yet been tested against noise.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of noise on the accuracy of CT number linearity of the FS and SR methods on American College of Radiology (ACR) CT and computational phantoms.
Material and Methods: This experimental study utilized two phantoms, ACR CT and computational phantoms. An ACR CT phantom was scanned by a 128-slice CT scanner with various tube currents from 80 to 200 mA to acquire various noises, with other constant parameters. The computational phantom was added by different Gaussian noises between 20 and 120 Hounsfield Units (HU). The CT number linearity was measured by the FS and SR methods, and the accuracy of CT number linearity was computed on two phantoms.
Results: The two methods successfully segmented both phantoms at low noise, i.e., less than 60 HU. However, segmentation and measurement of CT number linearity are not accurate on a computational phantom using the FS method for more than 60-HU noise. The SR method is still accurate up to 120 HU of noise. 
Conclusion: The SR method outperformed the FS method to measure the CT number linearity due to its endurance in extreme noise.

تازه های تحقیق

Choirul Anam (Google Scholar)

کلیدواژه‌ها
ACR CT Phantom؛ Computational Phantom؛ Diagnostic Imaging؛ Image Quality Enhancement؛ Noise؛ CT Number Linearity؛ Computed Tomography Scanner؛ Quality of Health Care
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Li Y, Jiang Y, Yu X, Ren B, Wang C, Chen S, et al. Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study. Front Endocrinol. 2022;13:884306. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.884306. PubMed PMID: 36034436. PubMed PMCID: PMC9403270.
  2. Barros MC, Altmayer S, Carvalho AR, Rodrigues R, Zanon M, Mohammed TL, et al. Quantitative computed tomography: What clinical questions can it answer in chronic lung disease? Lung. 2022;200(4):447-55. doi: 10.1007/s00408-022-00550-1. PubMed PMID: 35751660. PubMed PMCID: PMC9378468.2.
  3. Shin SY, Hong IK, Jo YS. Quantitative computed tomography texture analysis: can it improve diagnostic accuracy to differentiate malignant lymph nodes? Cancer Imaging. 2019;19(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s40644-019-0214-8. PubMed PMID: 31113494. PubMed PMCID: PMC6530003.
  4. Pocock N. Use of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, the trabecular bone score and quantitative computed tomography in the evaluation of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorders. 2017;2:19-21. doi: 10.1111/nep.13016. PubMed PMID: 28429557.
  5. Yoo JS, Chung SH, Lim MC, Kim YJ, Kim KG, Hwang JH, Kim YH. Computed tomography-based quantitative assessment of lower extremity lymphedema following treatment for gynecologic cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28(2):18. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e18. PubMed PMID: 28028991. PubMed PMCID: PMC5323285.
  6. Al-Hayek Y, Spuur K, Davidson R, Hayre C, Zheng X. The impacts of vertical off-centring, localiser direction, phantom positioning and tube voltage on CT number accuracy: An experimental study. J Imaging. 2022;8(7):175. doi: 10.3390/jimaging8070175. PubMed PMID: 35877619. PubMed PMCID: PMC9316438.
  7. Zhang R, Cruz-Bastida JP, Gomez-Cardona D, Hayes JW, Li K, Chen GH. Quantitative accuracy of CT numbers: Theoretical analyses and experimental studies. Med Phys. 2018;45(10):4519-28. doi: 10.1002/mp.13119. PubMed PMID: 30102414. PubMed PMCID: PMC7301593.
  8. Booz C, Noeske J, Albrecht MH, Lenga L, Martin SS, Yel I, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative dual-energy CT-based bone mineral density assessment in comparison to Hounsfield unit measurements using dual x-ray absorptiometry as standard of reference. Eur J Radiol. 2020;132:109321. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109321. PubMed PMID: 33017775.
  9. Ahern DP, McDonnell JM, Riffault M, Evans S, Wagner SC, Vaccaro AR, et al. A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of Hounsfield units on computed topography relative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in the spine surgery population. Spine J. 2021;21(10):1738-49. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.03.008. PubMed PMID: 33722727.
  10. Buenger F, Eckardt N, Sakr Y, Senft C, Schwarz F. Correlation of bone density values of quantitative computed tomography and Hounsfield units measured in native computed tomography in 902 vertebral bodies. World Neurosurg. 2021;151:599-606. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.04.093. PubMed PMID: 33933695.
  11. Anam C, Triadyaksa P, Naufal A, Arifin Z, Muhlisin Z, Setiawati E, Budi WS. Impact of ROI size on the accuracy of noise measurement in CT on computational and ACR phantoms. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2022;12(4):359-68. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2202-1457. PubMed PMID: 36059282. PubMed PMCID: PMC9395624.
  12. Zarb F, Rainford L, McEntee MF. Image quality assessment tools for optimization of CT images. 2010;16(2):147-53. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2009.10.002.
  13. Diwakar M, Kumar M. A review on CT image noise and its denoising. Biomed Sig Processing and Control. 2018;42:73-88. doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2018.01.010.
  14. Wisselink HJ, Pelgrim GJ, Rook M, Dudurych I, Van Den Berge M, De Bock GH, Vliegenthart R. Improved precision of noise estimation in CT with a volume-based approach. Eur Radiol Exp. 2021;5(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s41747-021-00237-x. PubMed PMID: 34505172. PubMed PMCID: PMC8429536.
  15. Higaki T, Nakamura Y, Zhou J, Yu Z, Nemoto T, Tatsugami F, Awai K. Deep learning reconstruction at CT: Phantom study of the image characteristics. Acad Radiol. 2020;27(1):82-7. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2019.09.008. PubMed PMID: 31818389.
  16. Kanamori H, Nakamori N, Inoue K, Takenaka E. Effects of scattered X-rays on CT images. Phys Med Biol. 1985;30(3):239-49. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/30/3/004. PubMed PMID: 3983234.
  17. Zhang Y, Salehjahromi M, Yu H. Tensor decomposition and non-local means based spectral CT image denoising. J Xray Sci Technol. 2019;27(3):397-416. doi: 10.3233/XST-180413. PubMed PMID: 31081796. PMCID: PMC7371001.
  18. Clark TJ, Hsu LD, Hippe D, Cowan S, Carnell J, Wang CL. Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy: multidetector CT image noise correction improves specificity of a Gaussian model-based algorithm used for characterization of incidental adrenal nodules. Abdom Radiol. 2019;44(3):1033-43. doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1871-y. PubMed PMID: 30600378.
  19. Sprawls P. AAPM tutorial CT image detail and noise. 1992;12(5):1041-6. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.12.5.1529128. PubMed PMID: 1529128.
  20. Juluru K, Shih JC, Raj A, Comunale JP, Delaney H, Greenberg ED, et al. Effects of increased image noise on image quality and quantitative interpretation in brain CT perfusion. Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(8):1506-12. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3448. PubMed PMID: 23557960. PubMed PMCID: PMC4108445.
  21. Madani A, Keyzer C, Gevenois PA. Quantitative computed tomography assessment of lung structure and function in pulmonary emphysema. Eur Respir J. 2001;18(4):720-30. doi: 10.1183/09031936.01.00255701. PubMed PMID: 11716178.
  22. Lynch DA. Quantitative computed tomography of diffuse lung disease. J Thorac Imaging. 2013;28(5):264-5. doi: 10.1097/RTI.0b013e3182a14fd8. PubMed PMID: 23966091.
  23. Li Y, Jiang Y, Liu H, Yu X, Chen S, Ma D, Gao J, Wu Y. A phantom study comparing low-dose CT physical image quality from five different CT scanners. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2022;12(1):766-80. doi: 10.21037/qims-21-245. PubMed PMID: 34993117. PubMed PMCID: PMC8666789.
  24. Mehnati P, Jafari TM, Ghavami M. CT Role in the assessment of existence of breast cancerous cells. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2020;10(3):349-56. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.384. PubMed PMID: 32637379. PubMed PMCID: PMC7321400.
  25. Lascola KM, O’Brien RT, Wilkins PA, Clark-Price SC, Hartman SK, Mitchell MA. Qualitative and quantitative interpretation of computed tomography of the lungs in healthy neonatal foals. Am J Vet Res. 2013;74(9):1239-46. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.74.9.1239. PubMed PMID: 23977897.
  26. Anam C, Amilia R, Naufal A, Budi WS, Maya AT, Dougherty G. The automated measurement of CT number linearity using an ACR accreditation phantom. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2022;9(1):017002. doi: 10.1088/2057-1976/aca9d5. PubMed PMID: 36541467.
  27. Suyudi I, Anam C, Sutanto H, Triadyaksa P, Fujibuchi T. Comparisons of Hounsfield Unit Linearity between Images Reconstructed using an Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) and a Filter Back-Projection (FBP) Techniques. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2020;10(2):215-24. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1912-1013. PubMed PMID: 32337189. PubMed PMCID: PMC7166214.
  28. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I, Dougherty G. Automated calculation of water-equivalent diameter (Dw) based on AAPM Task Group 220. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(4):320-33. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6171. PubMed PMID: 27455491. PubMed PMCID: PMC5690059.
  29. Anam C, Sutanto H, Adi K, Budi WS, Muhlisin Z, Haryanto F, et al. Development of a computational phantom for validation of automated noise measurement in CT images. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2020;6(6):065001. doi: 10.1088/2057-1976/abb2f8. PubMed PMID: 35135906.
  30. Anam C, Budi WS, Adi K, Sutanto H, Haryanto F, Ali MH, Fujibuchi T, Dougherty G. Assessment of patient dose and noise level of clinical CT images: automated measurements. J Radiol Prot. 2019;39(3):783-93. doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ab23cc. PubMed PMID: 31117064.
  31. Birnbaum BA, Hindman N, Lee J, Babb JS. Multi-detector row CT attenuation measurements: assessment of intra- and interscanner variability with an anthropomorphic body CT phantom. Radiology. 2007;242(1):109-19. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2421052066. PubMed PMID: 17185663.
  32. Afifi MB, Abdelrazek A, Deiab NA, Abd El-Hafez AI, El-Farrash AH. The effects of CT x-ray tube voltage and current variations on the relative electron density (RED) and CT number conversion curves. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2020;13(1):1-11. doi: 10.1080/16878507.2019.1693176.
  33. Naidich DP, Marshall CH, Gribbin C, Arams RS, McCauley DI. Low-dose CT of the lungs: preliminary observations. Radiology. 1990;175(3):729-31. doi: 10.1148/radiology.175.3.2343122. PubMed PMID: 2343122.
  34. Tanaka C, Ueguchi T, Shimosegawa E, Sasaki N, Johkoh T, Nakamura H, Hatazawa J. Effect of CT acquisition parameters in the detection of subtle hypoattenuation in acute cerebral infarction: a phantom study. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(1):40-5. PubMed PMID: 16418353. PubMed PMCID: PMC7976079.
  35. Einstein SA, Rong XJ, Jensen CT, Liu X. Quantification and homogenization of image noise between two CT scanner models. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(1):174-78. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12798. PubMed PMID: 31859454. PubMed PMCID: PMC6964752.
  36. Cruz-Bastida JP, Zhang R, Gomez-Cardona D, Hayes J, Li K, Chen GH. Impact of noise reduction schemes on quantitative accuracy of CT numbers. Med Phys. 2019;46(7):3013-24. doi: 10.1002/mp.13549. PMID: 31004439.
  37. Kim JH, Chang Y, Ra JB. Denoising of polychromatic CT images based on their own noise properties. Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2251. doi: 10.1118/1.4945022. PubMed PMID: 27147337.
  38. Christe A, Heverhagen J, Ozdoba C, Weisstanner C, Ulzheimer S, Ebner L. CT dose and image quality in the last three scanner generations. World J Radiol. 2013;5(11):421-9. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v5.i11.421. PubMed PMID: 24349646. PubMed PMCID: PMC3856334.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 16,561
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 223


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب