PURPOSE: To mathematically model the relationship between CT measurements of emphysema obtained from images reconstructed using different section thicknesses and kernels and to evaluate the accuracy of the models for converting measurements to those of a reference reconstruction. METHODS: CT raw data from the lung cancer screening examinations of 138 heavy smokers were reconstructed at 15 different combinations of section thickness and kernel. An emphysema index was quantified as the percentage of the lung with attenuation below -950 HU (EI950). Linear, quadratic, and power functions were used to model the relationship between EI950 values obtained with a reference 1 mm, medium smooth kernel reconstruction and values from each of the other 14 reconstructions. Preferred models were selected using the corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc), coefficients of determination (R2), and residuals (conversion errors), and cross-validated by a jackknife approach using the leave-one-out method. RESULTS: The preferred models were power functions, with model R2 values ranging from 0.949 to 0.998. The errors in converting EI950 measurements from other reconstructions to the 1 mm, medium smooth kernel reconstruction in leave-one-out testing were less than 3.0 index percentage points for all reconstructions, and less than 1.0 index percentage point for five reconstructions. Conversion errors were related in part to image noise, emphysema distribution, and attenuation histogram parameters. Conversion inaccuracy related to increased kernel sharpness tended to be reduced by increased section thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Image reconstruction-related differences in quantitative emphysema measurements were successfully modeled using power functions.
PURPOSE: To mathematically model the relationship between CT measurements of emphysema obtained from images reconstructed using different section thicknesses and kernels and to evaluate the accuracy of the models for converting measurements to those of a reference reconstruction. METHODS: CT raw data from the lung cancer screening examinations of 138 heavy smokers were reconstructed at 15 different combinations of section thickness and kernel. An emphysema index was quantified as the percentage of the lung with attenuation below -950 HU (EI950). Linear, quadratic, and power functions were used to model the relationship between EI950 values obtained with a reference 1 mm, medium smooth kernel reconstruction and values from each of the other 14 reconstructions. Preferred models were selected using the corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc), coefficients of determination (R2), and residuals (conversion errors), and cross-validated by a jackknife approach using the leave-one-out method. RESULTS: The preferred models were power functions, with model R2 values ranging from 0.949 to 0.998. The errors in converting EI950 measurements from other reconstructions to the 1 mm, medium smooth kernel reconstruction in leave-one-out testing were less than 3.0 index percentage points for all reconstructions, and less than 1.0 index percentage point for five reconstructions. Conversion errors were related in part to image noise, emphysema distribution, and attenuation histogram parameters. Conversion inaccuracy related to increased kernel sharpness tended to be reduced by increased section thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Image reconstruction-related differences in quantitative emphysema measurements were successfully modeled using power functions.
Authors: P Boschetto; S Quintavalle; E Zeni; S Leprotti; A Potena; L Ballerin; A Papi; G Palladini; M Luisetti; L Annovazzi; P Iadarola; E De Rosa; L M Fabbri; C E Mapp Journal: Thorax Date: 2006-06-12 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Won-Dong Kim; Sean H Ling; Harvey O Coxson; John C English; John Yee; Robert D Levy; Peter D Paré; James C Hogg Journal: Chest Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: P A Gevenois; P De Vuyst; V de Maertelaer; J Zanen; D Jacobovitz; M G Cosio; J C Yernault Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Yrjo Hame; Elsa D Angelini; Eric A Hoffman; R Graham Barr; Andrew F Laine Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Usman Mahmood; Aditya P Apte; Joseph O Deasy; C Ross Schmidtlein; Amita Shukla-Dave Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2017 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Gonzalo Vegas-Sanchez-Ferrero; George Washko; Farbod N Rahaghi; Maria J Ledesma-Carbayo; R San José Estépar Journal: Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging Date: 2016-06-16
Authors: Jie Yang; Elsa D Angelini; Pallavi P Balte; Eric A Hoffman; Colin O Wu; Bharath A Venkatesh; R Graham Barr; Andrew F Laine Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2016-10-02
Authors: George R Washko; Gregory L Kinney; James C Ross; Raúl San José Estépar; MeiLan K Han; Mark T Dransfield; Victor Kim; Hiroto Hatabu; Carolyn E Come; Russell P Bowler; Edwin K Silverman; James Crapo; David A Lynch; John Hokanson; Alejandro A Diaz Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Lorenzo Ball; Claudia Brusasco; Francesco Corradi; Francesco Paparo; Alessandro Garlaschi; Peter Herrmann; Michael Quintel; Paolo Pelosi Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Leticia Gallardo-Estrella; David A Lynch; Mathias Prokop; Douglas Stinson; Jordan Zach; Philip F Judy; Bram van Ginneken; Eva M van Rikxoort Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lorenzo Ball; Anja Braune; Francesco Corradi; Claudia Brusasco; Alessandro Garlaschi; Thomas Kiss; Thomas Bluth; Francesca Simonassi; Alice Bergamaschi; Jörg Kotzerke; Marcus J Schultz; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp Date: 2017-04-04
Authors: Jennifer L Boes; Maria Bule; Benjamin A Hoff; Ryan Chamberlain; David A Lynch; Jadranka Stojanovska; Fernando J Martinez; Meilan K Han; Ella A Kazerooni; Brian D Ross; Craig J Galbán Journal: Tomography Date: 2015-09