R M S Joemai1, J Geleijns, W J H Veldkamp. 1. Radiology Department, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. R.M.S.Joemai@lumc.nl
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and validate software for facilitating observer studies on the effect of radiation exposure on the diagnostic value of computed tomography (CT). METHODS: A low dose simulator was developed which adds noise to the raw CT data. For validation two phantoms were used: a cylindrical test object and an anthropomorphic phantom. Images of both were acquired at different dose levels by changing the tube current of the acquisition (500 mA to 20 mA in five steps). Additionally, low dose simulations were performed from 500 mA downwards to 20 mA in the same steps. Noise was measured within the cylindrical test object and in the anthropomorphic phantom. Finally, noise power spectra (NPS) were measured in water. RESULTS: The low dose simulator yielded similar image quality compared with actual low dose acquisitions. Mean difference in noise over all comparisons between actual and simulated images was 5.7 +/- 4.6% for the cylindrical test object and 3.3 +/- 2.6% for the anthropomorphic phantom. NPS measurements showed that the general shape and intensity are similar. CONCLUSION: The developed low dose simulator creates images that accurately represent the image quality of acquisitions at lower dose levels and is suitable for application in clinical studies.
PURPOSE: To develop and validate software for facilitating observer studies on the effect of radiation exposure on the diagnostic value of computed tomography (CT). METHODS: A low dose simulator was developed which adds noise to the raw CT data. For validation two phantoms were used: a cylindrical test object and an anthropomorphic phantom. Images of both were acquired at different dose levels by changing the tube current of the acquisition (500 mA to 20 mA in five steps). Additionally, low dose simulations were performed from 500 mA downwards to 20 mA in the same steps. Noise was measured within the cylindrical test object and in the anthropomorphic phantom. Finally, noise power spectra (NPS) were measured in water. RESULTS: The low dose simulator yielded similar image quality compared with actual low dose acquisitions. Mean difference in noise over all comparisons between actual and simulated images was 5.7 +/- 4.6% for the cylindrical test object and 3.3 +/- 2.6% for the anthropomorphic phantom. NPS measurements showed that the general shape and intensity are similar. CONCLUSION: The developed low dose simulator creates images that accurately represent the image quality of acquisitions at lower dose levels and is suitable for application in clinical studies.
Authors: Rogier E van Gelder; Henk W Venema; Iwo W O Serlie; C Yung Nio; Rogier M Determann; Corinne A Tipker; Frans M Vos; Afina S Glas; Joep F W Bartelsman; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Johan S Laméris; Jaap Stoker Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J R Mayo; K P Whittall; A N Leung; T E Hartman; C S Park; S L Primack; G K Chambers; M K Limkeman; T L Toth; S H Fox Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nancy R Fefferman; Elan Bomsztyk; Angela M Yim; Rafael Rivera; John B Amodio; Lynne P Pinkney; Naomi A Strubel; Marilyn E Noz; Henry Rusinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Donald P Frush; Christopher C Slack; Caroline L Hollingsworth; George S Bisset; Lane F Donnelly; Jiang Hsieh; Trudy Lavin-Wensell; John R Mayo Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Denis Tack; Viviane De Maertelaer; Wendy Petit; Pierre Scillia; Patrick Muller; Christoph Suess; Pierre Alain Gevenois Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jasper Florie; Rogier E van Gelder; Michiel P Schutter; Adrienne van Randen; Henk W Venema; Steven de Jager; Victor P M van der Hulst; Anna Prent; Shandra Bipat; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Lubbertus C Baak; Jaap Stoker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wisnumurti Kristanto; Peter M A van Ooijen; Marcel J W Greuter; Jaap M Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Adam S Wang; J Webster Stayman; Yoshito Otake; Sebastian Vogt; Gerhard Kleinszig; A Jay Khanna; Gary L Gallia; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Wisnumurti Kristanto; Peter M A van Ooijen; Jaap M Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: David Mozejko; Hilde Kjernlie Andersen; Marius Pedersen; Dag Waaler; Anne Catrine Trægde Martinsen Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Noortje van der Bijl; Raoul M S Joemai; Bart J A Mertens; Albert de Roos; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Jeroen J Bax; Joanne D Schuijf; Jacob Geleijns; Lucia J M Kroft Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-09-22 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Daniela Muenzel; Thomas Koehler; Kevin Brown; Stanislav Zabić; Alexander A Fingerle; Simone Waldt; Edgar Bendik; Tina Zahel; Armin Schneider; Martin Dobritz; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 3.240