首页> 外文期刊>Korean journal of radiology : >Application of Vendor-Neutral Iterative Reconstruction Technique to Pediatric Abdominal Computed Tomography
【24h】

Application of Vendor-Neutral Iterative Reconstruction Technique to Pediatric Abdominal Computed Tomography

机译:空腹迭代重建技术在小儿腹部计算机断层扫描中的应用

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective To compare image qualities between vendor-neutral and vendor-specific hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) in young patients. Materials and Methods In phantom study, we used an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom, age-equivalent to 5-year-old, and reconstructed CT data using traditional filtered back projection (FBP), vendor-specific and vendor-neutral IR techniques (ClariCT; ClariPI) in various radiation doses. Noise, low-contrast detectability and subjective spatial resolution were compared between FBP, vendor-specific (i.e., iDose1 to 5; Philips Healthcare), and vendor-neutral (i.e., ClariCT1 to 5) IR techniques in phantom. In 43 patients (median, 14 years; age range 1–19 years), noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitative image quality scores of abdominopelvic CT were compared between FBP, iDose level 4 (iDose4), and ClariCT level 2 (ClariCT2), which showed most similar image quality to clinically used vendor-specific IR images (i.e., iDose4) in phantom study. Noise, CNR, and qualitative imaging scores were compared using one-way repeated measure analysis of variance. Results In phantom study, ClariCT2 showed noise level similar to iDose4 (14.68–7.66 Hounsfield unit [HU] vs. 14.78–6.99 HU at CT dose index volume range of 0.8–3.8 mGy). Subjective low-contrast detectability and spatial resolution were similar between ClariCT2 and iDose4. In clinical study, ClariCT2 was equivalent to iDose4 for noise (14.26–17.33 vs. 16.01–18.90) and CNR (3.55–5.24 vs. 3.20–4.60) ( p 0.05). For qualitative imaging scores, the overall image quality ([reader 1, reader 2]; 2.74 vs. 2.07, 3.02 vs. 2.28) and noise (2.88 vs. 2.23, 2.93 vs. 2.33) of ClariCT2 were superior to those of FBP ( p 0.05). Conclusion Vendor-neutral IR technique shows image quality similar to that of clinically used vendor-specific hybrid IR technique for abdominopelvic CT in young patients.
机译:目的比较年轻患者腹部中骨盆计算机断层扫描(CT)的供应商中性和供应商特定的混合迭代重建(IR)技术之间的图像质量。材料和方法在幻像研究中,我们使用了年龄相当于5岁的拟人化儿科幻像,并使用传统的过滤反投影(FBP),特定于供应商和中性的IR技术(ClariCT; ClariPI)重建了CT数据。 )的各种辐射剂量。在幻像中比较了FBP,供应商特定的(即iDose1至5; Philips Healthcare)和供应商中性的(即ClariCT1至5)IR技术之间的噪声,低对比度可检测性和主观空间分辨率。在43名患者中,比较了FBP,iDose 4级(iDose4)和FBP,iDose 4级和iDose 4级之间的腹部骨盆CT的噪声,对比度,噪声比和定性图像质量评分ClariCT 2级(ClariCT2),在幻像研究中显示出与临床使用的供应商特定IR图像(即iDose4)最相似的图像质量。使用方差的单向重复测量分析比较噪声,CNR和定性成像得分。结果在幻像研究中,ClariCT2的噪声水平与iDose4相似(在CT剂量指数范围为0.8–3.8 mGy时,Hounsfield单位[HU]为14.68–6.99 HU,而14.78–6.99 HU)。 ClariCT2和iDose4之间的主观低对比度可检测性和空间分辨率相似。在临床研究中,ClariCT2的噪音(14.26–17.33 vs. 16.01–18.90)和CNR(3.55–5.24 vs 3.20–4.60)等效于iDose4(p> 0.05)。对于定性成像得分,ClariCT2的整体图像质量([阅读器1,阅读器2]; 2.74 vs. 2.07,3.02 vs. 2.28)和噪声(2.88 vs. 2.23,2.93 vs. 2.33)均优于FBP( p 0.05)。结论卖方中立IR技术显示的图像质量与临床上针对年轻患者腹部盆腔CT的卖方特定混合IR技术的图像质量相似。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号