OBJECTIVE: To compare low-contrast detectability (LCDet) performance between a model [non-pre-whitening matched filter with an eye filter (NPWE)] and human observers in CT images reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative [adaptive iterative dose reduction three-dimensional (AIDR 3D; Toshiba Medical Systems, Zoetermeer, Netherlands)] algorithms. METHODS: Images of the Catphan® phantom (Phantom Laboratories, New York, NY) were acquired with Aquilion ONE™ 320-detector row CT (Toshiba Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) at five tube current levels (20-500 mA range) and reconstructed with FBP and AIDR 3D. Samples containing either low-contrast objects (diameters, 2-15 mm) or background were extracted and analysed by the NPWE model and four human observers in a two-alternative forced choice detection task study. Proportion correct (PC) values were obtained for each analysed object and used to compare human and model observer performances. An efficiency factor (η) was calculated to normalize NPWE to human results. RESULTS: Human and NPWE model PC values (normalized by the efficiency, η = 0.44) were highly correlated for the whole dose range. The Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) between human and NPWE were 0.984 (0.972-0.991) for AIDR 3D and 0.984 (0.971-0.991) for FBP, respectively. Bland-Altman plots based on PC results showed excellent agreement between human and NPWE [mean absolute difference 0.5 ± 0.4%; range of differences (-4.7%, 5.6%)]. CONCLUSION: The NPWE model observer can predict human performance in LCDet tasks in phantom CT images reconstructed with FBP and AIDR 3D algorithms at different dose levels. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantitative assessment of LCDet in CT can accurately be performed using software based on a model observer.
OBJECTIVE: To compare low-contrast detectability (LCDet) performance between a model [non-pre-whitening matched filter with an eye filter (NPWE)] and human observers in CT images reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative [adaptive iterative dose reduction three-dimensional (AIDR 3D; Toshiba Medical Systems, Zoetermeer, Netherlands)] algorithms. METHODS: Images of the Catphan® phantom (Phantom Laboratories, New York, NY) were acquired with Aquilion ONE™ 320-detector row CT (Toshiba Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) at five tube current levels (20-500 mA range) and reconstructed with FBP and AIDR 3D. Samples containing either low-contrast objects (diameters, 2-15 mm) or background were extracted and analysed by the NPWE model and four human observers in a two-alternative forced choice detection task study. Proportion correct (PC) values were obtained for each analysed object and used to compare human and model observer performances. An efficiency factor (η) was calculated to normalize NPWE to human results. RESULTS:Human and NPWE model PC values (normalized by the efficiency, η = 0.44) were highly correlated for the whole dose range. The Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) between human and NPWE were 0.984 (0.972-0.991) for AIDR 3D and 0.984 (0.971-0.991) for FBP, respectively. Bland-Altman plots based on PC results showed excellent agreement between human and NPWE [mean absolute difference 0.5 ± 0.4%; range of differences (-4.7%, 5.6%)]. CONCLUSION: The NPWE model observer can predict human performance in LCDet tasks in phantom CT images reconstructed with FBP and AIDR 3D algorithms at different dose levels. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantitative assessment of LCDet in CT can accurately be performed using software based on a model observer.
Authors: Ehsan Samei; Aldo Badano; Dev Chakraborty; Ken Compton; Craig Cornelius; Kevin Corrigan; Michael J Flynn; Bradley Hemminger; Nick Hangiandreou; Jeffrey Johnson; Donna M Moxley-Stevens; William Pavlicek; Hans Roehrig; Lois Rutz; Jeffrey Shepard; Robert A Uzenoff; Jihong Wang; Charles E Willis Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Raoul M S Joemai; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Lucia J M Kroft; Irene Hernandez-Giron; Jacob Geleijns Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Amy Berrington de González; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Kwang-Pyo Kim; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca Lewis; Fred Mettler; Charles Land Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-12-14
Authors: Hao Gong; Joel G Fletcher; Jay P Heiken; Michael L Wells; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough; Lifeng Yu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Shuai Leng; Baiyu Chen; Thomas Vrieze; Joel Kuhlmann; Lifeng Yu; Amy Alexander; Jane Matsumoto; Jonathan Morris; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-07-07
Authors: Juliane Conzelmann; Felix Benjamin Schwarz; Bernd Hamm; Michael Scheel; Paul Jahnke Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 2.102