An Algorithm for Automatic Low-contrast Detection System and Its Evaluation for Images with Various Phantom Rotations

Authors

  • Rahmat Riyadi Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia Author
  • Choirul Anam Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia Author
  • Heri Sutanto Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia Author
  • Ariij Naufal Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia Author
  • Riska Amilia Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST241161115

Keywords:

low-contrast detectability, contrast-to-noise ratio, automatic method, template matching method

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop an algorithm for automatic low-contrast object detection on the ACR 464 CT phantom and to investigate its evaluation for images with various phantom rotations. A software for automatic low-contrast detection was implemented with MATLAB R2013a. An algorithm was based on a template matching method. The reference points for the template matching method was centers of phantom and largest low-contrast object. The centers of the phantom and the largest low-contrast object were calculated using centroid formulae from the segmented phantom and objects with specific threshold values. Region of interests (ROIs) were located at each low-contrast object and background. The mean CT number and noise were calculated from pixel values within each ROI. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was then calculated based on the contrast between low-contrast object and background. The CNR cut-off is one. Object that has a CNR value more than the cut-off is considered resolved object and object that has a CNR value less than the cut-off is considered unresolved object. The algorithm was evaluated on images of the ACR CT phantom with various rotations of 0°, 22.5°, 45°, and 60°. Statistic evaluation was performed by ANOVA one-way to compare results of mean CT number, noise, and CNR for various rotations. The p-value more than 0.05 indicated that there is no significant difference. The proposed method was successful in placing ROIs at all low-contrast objects and at background for various phantom rotations. The CNR increases with the increase of size of the low-contrast object. The p-values for contrast, noise and CNR were 0.99, indicating that there are no statistically significant differences for various rotations. The minimum resolved object detectability in various rotations was 4 mm. An automatic technique for detecting low-contrast objects is accurate for various rotations.

Downloads

References

J. Kingsland, “Looking for trouble,” New Sci (1956), vol. 185, no. 2490, pp. 42 – 45, 2005.

P. Prabhu, H. Ramaswamy, and K. Nirmala, “A Quantitative Study on Shaping Filters in Computed Tomography Image Reconstruction,” in 2021 2nd Global Conference for Advancement in Technology, GCAT 2021, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Oct. 2021. doi: 10.1109/GCAT52182.2021.9587809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/GCAT52182.2021.9587809

C. Rampinelli, S. F. Calloni, M. Minotti, and M. Bellomi, “Spectrum of early lung cancer presentation in low-dose screening CT: a pictorial review,” Insight Imaging, vol. 7, no.3, pp. 449-459, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s13244-016-0487-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0487-4

B. D. Pooler et al., “Prospective Evaluation of Reduced Dose Computed Tomography for the Detection of Low-Contrast Liver Lesions: Direct Comparison with Concurrent Standard Dose Imaging,” Eur Radiol, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 2055 – 2066, 2017. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4571-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4571-4

C. Anam, A. Naufal, H. Sutanto, T. Fujibuchi, and G. Dougherty, “A novel method for developing contrast-detail curves from clinical patient images based on statistical low-contrast detectability,” Biomed Phys Eng Express, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 045027, 2024. doi: 10.1088/2057-1976/ad4b20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ad4b20

H. A. Alsleem and H. M. Almohiy, “The Feasibility of Contrast-to-Noise Ratio on Measurements to Evaluate CT Image Quality in Terms of Low-Contrast Detailed Detectability,” Med Sci (Basel), vol. 8, no. 3, 2020. doi: 10.3390/medsci8030026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci8030026

J. Hsieh and T. Toth, “SU‐GG‐I‐13: Low‐Contrast Detectability for X‐Ray Computed Tomography,” Medical Physics, p. 2645, 2008, doi: 10.1118/1.2961412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2961412

A. Omigbodun, J. Y. Vaishnav, and S. S. Hsieh, “Rapid measurement of the low-contrast detectability of CT scanners,” Med Phys, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 1054–1063, 2021. doi: 10.1002/mp.14657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14657

C. Anam, A. Naufal, T. Fujibuchi, K. Matsubara, and G. Dougherty, “Automated development of the contrast–detail curve based on statistical low-contrast detectability in CT images,” J Appl Clin Med Phys vol. 23, no. 9, pp. e13719, 2022. doi: 10.1002/acm2.13719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13719

K. Chang, J. Choi, G. Kim, J. Go, S. Kim, and S. Yu, “Evaluation of the image quality on computed tomography,” Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. Specialissue4, pp. 3724 – 3729, 2018. doi: 10.3923/jeasci.2018.3724.3729.

J. Payne, “WE‐A‐M100J‐01: ACR Application Process: Pitfalls to Avoid,” Med Phys, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 2578, 2007. doi: 10.1118/1.2761464. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2761464

Y. Miura, K. Ichikawa, T. Hara, S. Niwa, I. Fujimura, and S. Terakawa, “[Evaluation of low-contrast detectability in low-dose chest computed tomography].,” Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 873 – 879, 2011. doi: 10.6009/jjrt.67.873. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.67.873

I. Hernández-Girón, J. Geleijns, A. Calzado, M. Salvadó, R. M. S. Joemai, and W. J. H. Veldkamp, “Objective assessment of low-contrast detectability for real CT phantom and in simulated images using a model observer,” IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, pp. 3477 – 3480, 2011. doi: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2011.6152637. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2011.6152637

E. A. Krupinski, J. Johnson, H. Roehrig, J. Nafziger, and J. Lubin, “Viewing images on and off axis with CRT and LCD monitors: Effects on observer and model performance,” Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 281 – 287, 2005. doi: 10.1117/12.592216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.592216

I. Hernandez-Giron, A. Calzado, J. Geleijns, R. M. S. Joemai, and W. J. H. Veldkamp, “Low-contrast detectability performance of model observers based on CT phantom images: KVp influence,” Physica Medica, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 798–807, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.04.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.04.012

M. Mori et al., “Method of measuring contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in nonuniform image area in digital radiography,” Electronics and Communications in Japan, vol. 96, no. 7, pp. 32 – 41, 2013. doi: 10.1002/ecj.11416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecj.11416

A. H. Goenka et al., “Image noise, cnr, and Detectability of low-contrast, low-attenuation liver lesions in a Phantom: Effects of Radiation Exposure, Phantom Size, Integrated Circuit Detector, and Iterative Reconstruction1,” Radiology, vol. 280, no. 2, pp. 475–482, 2016. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151621

M. O. Ehman et al., “Automated low-contrast pattern recognition algorithm for magnetic resonance image quality assessment,” Med Phys, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 4009 – 4024, 2017. doi: 10.1002/mp.12370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12370

J. B. Solomon and E. Samei, “Correlation between human detection accuracy and observer model-based image quality metrics in computed tomography,” Journal of Medical Imaging, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1, 2021. doi: 10.1117/1.jmi.3.3.035506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.3.3.035506

C. Anam, R. Amilia, A. Naufal, T. Fujibuchi, and G. Dougherty, “A statistical-based automatic detection of a low-contrast object in the ACR CT phantom for measuring contrast-to-noise ratio of CT images,” Biomed Phys Eng Express, vol 11, no. 1, pp. 017001, 2025. doi: 10.1088/2057-1976/ad90e9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ad90e9

D. Novitasari, C. Anam, E. Setiawati, R. Amilia, A. Naufal, and A. D. Reskianto, “Evaluation of IndoQCT for automatic measurement of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) on American college of radiology (ACR) CT phantom images,” AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 3210, no. 1, pp. 030008, 2024. doi: 10.1063/5.0228091. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0228091

E. Setiawati, C. Anam, W. Widyasari, and G. Dougherty, “The Quantitative Effect of Noise and Object Diameter on Low-Contrast Detectability of AAPM CT Performance Phantom Images,” Atom Indonesia, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 61–66, 2023. doi: 10.55981/aij.2023.1228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55981/aij.2023.1228

Y. Zhou et al., “On the relationship of minimum detectable contrast to dose and lesion size in abdominal CT,” Phys Med Biol, vol. 60, no. 19, p. 7671, 2015. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/19/7671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/19/7671

A. Urikura et al., “Objective assessment of low-contrast computed tomography images with iterative reconstruction,” Physica Medica, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 992 – 998, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.07.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.07.003

K. Gulliksrud, C. Stokke, and A. C. Trægde Martinsen, “How to measure CT image quality: Variations in CT-numbers, uniformity and low-contrast resolution for a CT quality assurance phantom,” Physica Medica, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 521–526, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.01.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.01.006

A. Lall, “Data streaming algorithms for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,” in Proceedings - 2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, IEEE Big Data 2015, 2015, pp. 95 – 104. doi: 10.1109/BigData.2015.7363746. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2015.7363746

K. DeJarnette and M. Mamidala, Analysis of variance. 2023. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-90300-4.00101-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90300-4.00101-4

Y. Funama, Y. Sugaya, O. Miyazaki, D. Utsunomiya, Y. Yamashita, and K. Awai, “Automatic exposure control at MDCT based on the contrast-to-noise ratio: Theoretical background and phantom study,” Physica Medica, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 39–47, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.11.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.11.004

Downloads

Published

12-12-2024

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

An Algorithm for Automatic Low-contrast Detection System and Its Evaluation for Images with Various Phantom Rotations. (2024). International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, 11(6), 637-645. https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST241161115

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1-10 of 173

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.