| Literature DB >> 32588212 |
Fredrik Grönberg1, Johan Lundberg2, Martin Sjölin3, Mats Persson3,4, Robert Bujila5, Hans Bornefalk3, Håkan Almqvist2, Staffan Holmin2, Mats Danielsson3.
Abstract
RATIONALE ANDEntities:
Keywords: Algorithms; Contrast media; Phantoms, imaging; Plaque, atherosclerotic; Tomography, X-ray computed
Year: 2020 PMID: 32588212 PMCID: PMC7554013 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07017-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Fig. 1Left: experimental PCD sensor with edge-on multi-strata design. Right: illustration of assembled detector module. Sensors are assembled in two stacks to obtain full geometric efficiency
Fig. 2Results from applying the material decomposition algorithm to four selected calibration data points. Each dot is the result of the material decomposition algorithm on the photons acquired in one view/projection. The spread of each point cloud is due to the statistical uncertainty due to photon noise. Each plot depicts the same estimates viewed from a different axis. The labels APE, APVC, and AI denote pathlengths through the phantom of the corresponding material. The mean over frames and true pathlength values are marked in the images. These results are also compiled in Table 1
Material decomposition bias. Measured bias resulting from applying the material decomposition to selected points in the calibration data set. The ground truth value represents the actual pathlength of each material, taking into account the estimated fraction of water in the contrast agent solution expressed as a combination of PE and PVC. The presented estimate is the sample mean of estimates for each measurement and pixel in the detector
| Sample point | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.0 / 5.0 | 0.1 / 0.1 | 0.0 / 0.0 |
| 2 | 8.9 / 8.9 | 0.1 / 0.1 | 13.6 / 13.3 |
| 3 | 4.9 / 4.9 | 3.1 / 3.0 | 13.6 / 13.9 |
| 4 | 8.9 / 8.8 | 3.1 / 3.1 | 27.2 / 26.2 |
Material decomposition noise. Measured noise resulting from applying the material decomposition method on selected points in the calibration data set. The three left columns present the sample standard deviation of the noise for each material estimate, and the three right columns present the correlation coefficients between the different material estimates
| Sample point | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 1.13 | − 0.90 | 0.75 | − 0.96 |
| 2 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 2.06 | − 0.91 | 0.80 | − 0.98 |
| 3 | 0.16 | 0.13 | 3.92 | − 0.96 | 0.87 | − 0.97 |
| 4 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 3.30 | − 0.95 | 0.79 | − 0.93 |
Fig. 3Images in full field of view. Row 1: synthetic monoenergetic images. Row 2: virtual non-contrast images. Row 3: virtual non-calcium images. Left column: the clinical scanner. Right column: experimental photon-counting detector (PCD). Red arrows indicate presence of iodine. Green arrows indicate presence of calcifications. Orange box indicates region of interest presented in Fig. 4
Fig. 4Zoom of region of interest (orange box) shown in Fig. 3. Row 1: synthetic monoenergetic images. Row 2: virtual non-contrast images. Row 3: virtual non-calcium images. Left column: the clinical scanner. Right column: experimental photon-counting detector (PCD). Red arrows indicate presence of iodine. Green arrows indicate presence of calcifications