Literature DB >> 16898449

Voting strategy for artifact reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Tao Wu1, Richard H Moore, Daniel B Kopans.   

Abstract

Artifacts are observed in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reconstructions due to the small number of projections and the narrow angular range that are typically employed in tomosynthesis imaging. In this work, we investigate the reconstruction artifacts that are caused by high-attenuation features in breast and develop several artifact reduction methods based on a "voting strategy." The voting strategy identifies the projection(s) that would introduce artifacts to a voxel and rejects the projection(s) when reconstructing the voxel. Four approaches to the voting strategy were compared, including projection segmentation, maximum contribution deduction, one-step classification, and iterative classification. The projection segmentation method, based on segmentation of high-attenuation features from the projections, effectively reduces artifacts caused by metal and large calcifications that can be reliably detected and segmented from projections. The other three methods are based on the observation that contributions from artifact-inducing projections have higher value than those from normal projections. These methods attempt to identify the projection(s) that would cause artifacts by comparing contributions from different projections. Among the three methods, the iterative classification method provides the best artifact reduction; however, it can generate many false positive classifications that degrade the image quality. The maximum contribution deduction method and one-step classification method both reduce artifacts well from small calcifications, although the performance of artifact reduction is slightly better with the one-step classification. The combination of one-step classification and projection segmentation removes artifacts from both large and small calcifications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16898449     DOI: 10.1118/1.2207127

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  19 in total

1.  Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-07-28       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis: investigation of the effects of system geometry and reconstruction parameters using a linear system approach.

Authors:  Yue-Houng Hu; Bo Zhao; Wei Zhao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Alicia Toledano; Cosimo di Maggio; Enrica Baldan; Elisabetta Bezzon; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Aida Toffoli; Pier Carlo Muzzio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system.

Authors:  Bo Zhao; Wei Zhao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Automated detection of microcalcification clusters for digital breast tomosynthesis using projection data only: a preliminary study.

Authors:  I Reiser; R M Nishikawa; A V Edwards; D B Kopans; R A Schmidt; J Papaioannou; R H Moore
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads.

Authors:  James T Dobbins
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Application of boundary detection information in breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.

Authors:  Yiheng Zhang; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Yi-Ta Wu; Chuan Zhou; Jun Ge; Jun Wei; Lubomir M Hadjiiski
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Analysis of parenchymal texture with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammography and implications for cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Despina Kontos; Lynda C Ikejimba; Predrag R Bakic; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Optimized image acquisition for breast tomosynthesis in projection and reconstruction space.

Authors:  Amarpreet S Chawla; Joseph Y Lo; Jay A Baker; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 10.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.