| Literature DB >> 30558381 |
Shih-Chun Jin1, Chia-Jui Hsieh2, Jyh-Cheng Chen3, Shih-Huan Tu4, Ya-Chen Chen5, Tzu-Chien Hsiao6,7, Angela Liu8, Wen-Hsiang Chou9, Woei-Chyn Chu10, Chih-Wei Kuo11.
Abstract
Limited-angle iterative reconstruction (LAIR) reduces the radiation dose required for computed tomography (CT) imaging by decreasing the range of the projection angle. We developed an image-quality-based stopping-criteria method with a flexible and innovative instrument design that, when combined with LAIR, provides the image quality of a conventional CT system. This study describes the construction of different scan acquisition protocols for micro-CT system applications. Fully-sampled Feldkamp (FDK)-reconstructed images were used as references for comparison to assess the image quality produced by these tested protocols. The insufficient portions of a sinogram were inpainted by applying a context encoder (CE), a type of generative adversarial network, to the LAIR process. The context image was passed through an encoder to identify features that were connected to the decoder using a channel-wise fully-connected layer. Our results evidence the excellent performance of this novel approach. Even when we reduce the radiation dose by 1/4, the iterative-based LAIR improved the full-width half-maximum, contrast-to-noise and signal-to-noise ratios by 20% to 40% compared to a fully-sampled FDK-based reconstruction. Our data support that this CE-based sinogram completion method enhances the efficacy and efficiency of LAIR and that would allow feasibility of limited angle reconstruction.Entities:
Keywords: context encoder (CE); generative adversarial network (GAN); limited-angle iterative reconstruction (LAIR)
Year: 2018 PMID: 30558381 PMCID: PMC6308519 DOI: 10.3390/s18124458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
The architecture of the generative adversarial-based context encoder model on the Keras platform.
| Generator | Discriminator | |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Decoder | |
| 3 × 3, d = 2, conv, ↓, LeakyRELU(0.2), BN(0.8) | 34 × 17, d = 16, fully-connected | 3 × 3, d = 64, conv, ↓, LeakyRELU(0.2), BN(0.8) |
| 3 × 3, d = 4, conv, ↓, LeakyRELU(0.2), BN(0.8) | 3 × 3, d = 16, conv, ↑, RELU, BN(0.8) | 3 × 3, d = 128, conv, ↓, LeakyRELU(0.2), BN(0.8) |
| 3 × 3, d = 8, conv, ↓, LeakyRELU(0.2), BN(0.8) | 3 × 3, d = 8, conv, ↑, RELU, BN(0.8) | 3 × 3, d = 128, conv, LeakyRELU(0.2), BN(0.8) |
| 3 × 3, d = 16, conv, ↓, LeakyRELU(0.2), BN(0.8), Drop(0.5) | 3 × 3, d = 4, conv, ↑, RELU, BN(0.8) | 104,448 fully-connected |
| 21,696 fully-connected | 3 × 3, d = 2, conv, ↑, RELU, BN(0.8) | 1 fully-connected, sigmoid |
| 3 × 3, d = 1, tanh | ||
LeakyRELU: leaky rectified linear units, RELU: rectified linear units, Drop: dropout layer, ↓: 2 × 2 down-sampling, ↑: 2 × 2 up-sampling, d: depth of the filtered image, BN: batched normalization.
, j = 1, 2, …, M is the projection vector with a size of M = N × N. = a is the effective intersection length of the projection line j with pixel i. The general IR framework can be represented in the form of the constrained optimization problem.where is a non-negative factor, λ is the relaxation parameter that balances the two iterative processes between U() and V() and ε is the relative error. The first term U() is the data fidelity term, which enforces the fidelity of the with the measured projection vector . The second term V(), which is used to regularize the objective function, constrains the convergence of the X-ray attenuation coefficient using prior anatomical information. The final calculated must be non-negative. In this paper, we applied two optimizers, the adaptive-steepest-descent projections onto convex sets (ASD-POCS) [8,21] and TV-constrained expectation-maximization methods (EM-TV) methods [22,23], to modify and implement in this study. The regularized term is to minimize the TV-norm, which is used for both of the IR frameworks such thatwhere is the gradient operator and the notations i, j and k represent the unit vectors in the x, y and z directions. In cases where both algorithms are needed for the full-projection data to complete the sinogram, we have to apply the comparison step in iterations.
Figure 1The prototype of the laboratory designed micro-computed tomography (CT) system and its 50–80 kVp X-ray spectrum.
Simulation methods of image pre-processing to manipulate the LA sinogram before CE inpainting on the MATLAB platform.
| Pre-Processing Procedure | Dimensions (voxel) | Voxel Size (um) | Sinogram Radial Sampling |
|---|---|---|---|
| CT reconstructed image | 864 × 864 × 1536 | 69.00 | |
| Slice selection (air region rejection) | 864 × 864 × 500 | 69.00 | |
| Binning 2 × 2 | 432 × 432 × 250 | 138.00 | |
| ROI selection and isotropic air region rejection for training data, with flip, random rotation to do data argumentation) | 380 × 380 × 250 | 138.00 | |
| Forward projection to create sinogram data (replaced by 0 from the 90–359° region and repeated 0–89° information after 360–449°) | 541 × 450 × 250 | 75.00 | 1.00 |
| Resizing of the sinogram to meet the input size of the CE architecture | 544 × 448 × 250 | 74.586 | 1.004 |
| The CE inpainted sinogram | 544 × 448 × 250 | 74.586 | 1.004 |
| Reconstruction to image domain with bilinear interpolation | 864 × 864 × 500 | 68.61 |
Figure 2(a) Randomly generated 20 Shepp-Logan phantom images data using the Monte Carlo method. (b) Forward projection to generate corresponding sinogram data from 0 to 449°; (c) followed by the preprocessing rule to remove the data from 90 to 360° and to achieve the limited angle (LA) sinogram. (d) CT images reconstructed by context encoder (CE) inpainted sinogram.
The random number generated events according to method.
| Type of Object (Training) | Random Number Generated Events | Number per Slice | Total Sinograms Generated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital cylinder phantom | Number of cylinders (1–4), center of cylinder (initial x, y position), cylinder radius (from 10 to 20 pixel), initial phantom rotated angle (in degrees), reflection (yes/no), reversed rotation (yes/no) | 250 random build per slice | 1.250 |
| 2D Shepp-Logan phantom | Initial phantom rotated angle (in degree), reflection (yes/no), reversed rotation (yes/no) | 250 initial random rotated per slice | 1.250 |
| MOBY digital mouse phantom | Slice number (1-208 in axial direction), initial rotated angle (in degree), reflection (yes/no), reversed rotation (yes/no) | 125 slices from MOBY phantom (208 slices) | 1.250 |
| MINST dataset | Randomly select 125 images per digit | Numbers 0–9, total 10 sets | 1.250 |
| 3D Shepp-Logan phantom | Center 200 from 500 slices (remove air region) | 200 | 200 |
| QRM quality assurance phantom | Select 450 from 500 slices, from 4 phantoms (wire phantom, contrast, water phantom and hydroxyl-appetite) | 450 × 4 phantoms | 1.800 |
| Animal data | Use total 500 slice data from 6 mice (covered from head to pelvic region) | 500 × 6 mice | 3.000 |
Figure 3The flowchart of two-step reconstruction of the CT image by LA sinogram inpaint based method.
Figure 4The procedure and evaluation method of the test phantom: (a) 25-μm wire phantom, (b) contrast-scale phantom, (c) water phantom and (d) Hydroxyl-apatite (HA) phantom. The dashed-block areas are the regions for calculating the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and linearity. The size of the phantom unit is in mm. R here means the correlation coefficient.
Figure 5Evaluation of the completed LA sinogram results from the sinograms and their reconstructed images. (a) True sinogram, (b) Simulated LA sinogram and (c) CE inpainted sinogram from the testing set. (d) The difference of the sinogram (a) subtracted by (b) and (e) is the difference of the sinogram (a) subtracted by (a) and (c).
Figure 6Evaluation of the reconstructed images by testing the completed LA sinograms. (a) The true sinogram reconstructed using the Feldkamp (FDK) algorithm (reference image). The LA sinogram without completion was directly reconstructed by (b) FDK and (c) TV-constrained expectation-maximization methods (EM-TV) algorithm (100 iterations). The CE inpainted sinogram reconstructed CT image by (d) FDK, (e) EM-TV algorithm (20 iterations) and (f) EM-TV algorithm + IQ-based stopping criteria (only nine iterations). The (g–k) show the difference between (b–f) compared to the reference image (a). The display is in the range of [0, 0.02].
Figures-of-merit for limited angle sinogram completion in sinogram and image domain evaluation.
| Domain Type | Sinogram Domain | Image Domain | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items | LA | CE | FDK (LA) | EM-TV (LA) | FDK (CE) | EM-TV (CE) | EM-TV (CE+IQ) |
| PSNR (dB) | 10.1623 | 40.2738 | 13.9891 | 14.0356 | 24.1986 | 25.1891 | 26.6432 |
| UIQI | 0.3095 | 0.9993 | 0.5066 | 0.5109 | 0.8865 | 0.9023 | 0.9106 |
| SSIM | 0.3095 | 0.9993 | 0.8107 | 0.8123 | 0.9552 | 0.9612 | 0.9813 |
LA: limited-angle, CE: context-encoder, FDK: Feldkamp algorithm, EM-TV: TV-constrained expectation-maximization algorithm, IQ: image-quality-based stopping-criteria method applied, PSNR: peak signal-to-noise ratio, UIQI: universal image quality index, SSIM: structure similarity.
Figure 7Numerical results for 3D Shepp-Logan phantom: (a) True image. (b) FDK with LA mode (1°/projection with 90° coverage), (c) FDK with DSFC (1°/projection with 360° coverage) mode, (d) FDK with LSFC (5°/projection with 360° coverage) mode. (e) ASD-POCS + CE inpainting + IQ-based stopping criteria for LA mode, (f) DSFC and (g) LSFC mode. (h) EM-TV-based algorithm + CE inpainting + IQ-based stopping criteria for LA, (i) DSFC and (j) LSFC mode. Arrows point to the four types of artifact patterns: (1) unsmoothed shape edge (2) curved-ripple pattern (3) streak-artifact and (4) radiative-pattern.
Figure 8The reconstructed images from the FDK method in DSFC mode and the proposed stopping criteria included in the two LAIR algorithms (ASD-POCS and EM-TV) for four standard physical phantoms including (a) 25-μm wire phantom; (b) contrast-scale phantom; (c) water phantom and (d) HA phantom. The display’s dynamic range was set to the maximum for each different phantom image and the same scale between different algorithms automatically. For details of image analysis, please refer to Figure 4. The standard deviation of the fitted Gaussian function was calculated as 21.739 μm under the geometry of SID of 211.1 mm and SOD of 49 mm conditions to measure the radial spatial resolutions. The 3 × 3 mm2 ROIs were applied to the CNR, SNR and linearity measurements.
Figure 9The tomographic images of the contrast-injected mouse, which cross over into the liver (L), heart (H), abdomen (A) and pelvis (P) regions, reconstructed using the conventional FDK and the two LAIR algorithms. The display is in the range of [0, 0.02].
Average absorption dose and dose equivalent from 10 measurements for three protocols: LA, DSFC and LSFC modes.
| Acquisition Protocol | Dose Measurement | |
|---|---|---|
| Absorption Dose (mGy) | Effective Dose (μSv) | |
| LA mode | 0.2353 ± 0.30% | 0.1093 ± 0.30% |
| DSFC | 0.9626 ± 0.31% | 0.4470 ± 0.31% |
| LSFC | 0.2005 ± 0.28% | 0.0931 ± 0.28% |
| Dose rate per projection in 1 second | 0.0027 ± 0.31% | 0.0012 ± 0.31% |
LA: limited-angle, DSFC: densely-sampled-full-coverage, LSFC: loosely-sampled-full-coverage.