| Literature DB >> 22791082 |
Hideo Onishi1, Nobutoku Motomura, Koichi Fujino, Takahiro Natsume, Yasuhiro Haramoto.
Abstract
Several resolution recovery (RR) methods have been developed. This study was aimed to validate the following performance of the advanced RR methods: Evolution, Astonish, Flash3D, and 3D-OSEM. We compared the advanced RR method with filtered back projection (FBP) and standard order-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) using resolution (RES), cylinder/sphere (CYS), and myocardial (MYD) digital phantoms. The RES phantom was placed in three spheres. Sixteen spheres (hot and cold) were then placed in a concentric configuration (diameter: 96-9.6 mm) inside the CYS phantom. The MYD phantom was created by computer simulation with the use of an electron γ-shower 4 (EGS4) and it included two left ventricular defects in the myocardium. The performance was evaluated at source-to-detector distances (R-distance) of 166, 200, and 250 mm with reconstruction parameters (product of subset and iteration: SI) with use of the resolution recovery factor, count recovery, normalized mean square error (NMSE), and %CV. According to increased SI updates, the value of the FWHM decreased, and the effect was more obvious as the R-distance increased. The spatial resolution of the advanced RR method was 20 % better than that of FBP and OSEM. The resolution recovery ratio was 80 %, and the count recovery was maintained only in objects with a diameter of >30 mm in the advanced RR method. The NMSE and %CV was 50 and 30 % improved over FBP and OSEM, respectively. The advanced RR method caused overestimation due to Gibbs's phenomenon in the marginal region when the diameter of the sphere was 16-28.8 mm.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22791082 DOI: 10.1007/s12194-012-0168-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Phys Technol ISSN: 1865-0333