Comparative Analysis of Low-contrast Detectability (LCD) using a 4-AFC: Filtered Back Projection (FBP) and Iterative Reconstruction (IR) Images
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST2512143Keywords:
low-contrast detectability, AFC, filtered back projection, iterative reconstructionAbstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate low-contrast detectability (LCD) and investigate the effect of the filtered-back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) reconstruction algorithms on object size differences sing 4-alternative forced choice (4-AFC). Methods: Phantom images of the AAPM CT Performance Model 610 were scanned using GE Healthcare Revolution Evo 128 Slice CT scanner at 120 kV and 300 mA. Images are reconstructed using the FBP and IR 50%. A total of 6 radiographers served as observers in this study to assess low-contrast objects and small objects between 2.5 mm and 7.5 mm using the 4-AFC approach with a total of 440 questions. Results: It is found that the detection rate decreased for 3.5 mm objects with an overall decrease of 22% using FBP, and a decrease of 12% for 3.0 mm objects with IR. In terms of image reconstruction, IR out performed FBP with an 11% improvement in LCD. Conclusions: This study concludes that the 4-AFC method is effective for LCD on small objects. IR can be considered as a better image reconstruction approach to improve LCD, especially in small sized objects.
Downloads
References
Varghese B, Kandanga I, Puthussery P, et al. Radiation dose metrics in multidetector computed tomography examinations: A multicentre retrospective study from seven tertiary care hospitals in Kerala, South India. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2018;28(2):250-257.doi:10.4103/ijri.IJRI_394_17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijri.IJRI_394_17
Sulieman A, Adam H, Mahmoud MZ, et al. Radiogenic risk assessment for abdominal vascular computed tomography angiography. Radiat Phys Chem. 2020;168:108523. doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2019.108523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2019.108523
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 1993 report to the General Assembly. New York, NY: United Nations; 1993:280-283.
Staniszewska MA. Evaluation of patient exposure in computerised tomogram in Poland. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2002;98(4):437-440. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006735 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006735
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources, effects, and risks of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. New York, NY: United Nations; 2022: 84.
Toth TL. Image quality in CT: challenges and perspectives. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/174_2011_482
Zeggelink WF, Hart AA, Gilhuijs KG. Assessment of analysis-of-variance-based methods to quantify the random variations of observers in medical imaging measurements: guidelines to the investigator. Med Phys. 2004;31(7):1996-2007. doi:10.1118/1.1759798 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1759798
Miéville FA, Gudinchet F, Brunelle F, Bochud FO, Verdun FR. Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments--a phantom approach. Phys Med. 2013;29(1):99-110. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.12.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.12.004
Setiawati E, Anam C, Widyasari W, Dougherty G. The quantitative effect of noise and object diameter on low-contrast detectability of AAPM CT performance phantom images. Atom Indonesia. 2023;49(1):61-66. doi:10.55981/aij.2023.1228 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55981/aij.2023.1228
Liu Z, Wolfe S, Yu Z, et al. Observer-study-based approaches to quantitatively evaluate the realism of synthetic medical images. Phys Med Biol. 2023;68(7):074001. Published March 21, 2023. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/acc0ce. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/acc0ce
Hernandez-Giron I, Calzado A, Geleijns J, Joemai RM, Veldkamp WJ. Comparison between human and model observer performance in low-contrast detection tasks in CT images: application to images reconstructed with filtered back projection and iterative algorithms. Br J Radiol. 2014;87(1039):20140014. doi:10.1259/bjr.20140014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140014
Jäkel F, Wichmann FA. Spatial four-alternative forced-choice method is the preferred psychophysical method for naïve observers. J Vis. 2006;6(11):1307-1322. doi:10.1167/6.11.13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1167/6.11.13
Ilham IR, Anam C, Sutanto H, Naufal A, Amilia R. Impact of radiation dose and iterative reconstruction (IR) on low-contrast detectability with 4-AFC approach. Int J Sci Res Sci Technol. 2024;11(6):272-278. doi:10.32628/IJSRST24116181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST24116181
Dewantari R, Anam C, Sutanto H, et al. 2-AFC for detectability of low-contrast object of CT images scanned with two doses and reconstructed with various iterative reconstruction (IR) levels. Int J Sci Res Sci Technol. 2024;11(6):429-434. doi:10.32628/IJSRST24114307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST24114307
AAPM. AAPM CT Performance Phantom. Computerized Imaging Reference System, Inc: Virginia; 2013
Racine D, Ba AH, Ott JG, Bochud FO, Verdun FR. Objective assessment of low-contrast detectability in computed tomography with Channelized Hotelling Observer. Phys Med. 2016;32(1):76-83. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.011
Mileto A, Zamora DA, Alessio AM, et al. CT Detectability of Small Low-Contrast Hypoattenuating Focal Lesions: Iterative Reconstructions versus Filtered Back Projection. Radiology. 2018;289(2):443-454. doi:10.1148/radiol.2018180137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180137
Bellesi L, Wyttenbach R, Gaudino D, et al. A simple method for low-contrast detectability, image quality and dose optimisation with CT iterative reconstruction algorithms and model observers. Eur Radiol Exp. 2017;1(1):18. doi:10.1186/s41747-017-0023-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-017-0023-4
Saiprasad G, Filliben J, Peskin A, et al. Evaluation of Low-Contrast Detectability of Iterative Reconstruction across Multiple Institutions, CT Scanner Manufacturers, and Radiation Exposure Levels. Radiology. 2015;277(1):124-133. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015141260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141260
Njølstad T, Jensen K, Dybwad A, Salvesen Ø, Andersen HK, Schulz A. Low-contrast detectability and potential for radiation dose reduction using deep learning image reconstruction-A 20-reader study on a semi-anthropomorphic liver phantom. Eur J Radiol Open. 2022;9:100418. doi:10.1016/j.ejro.2022.100418 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2022.100418
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
