Ju Gang Nam1, Chulkyun Ahn2, Hyewon Choi1, Wonju Hong1, Jongsoo Park1, Jong Hyo Kim1,2,3, Jin Mo Goo4,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, and Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Program in Biomedical Radiation Sciences, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea. 3. Center for Medical-IT Convergence Technology Research, Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, Suwon, 16229, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, and Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. jmgoo@plaza.snu.ac.kr. 5. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. jmgoo@plaza.snu.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality between the vendor-agnostic and vendor-specific algorithms on ultralow-dose chest CT. METHODS: Vendor-agnostic deep learning post-processing model (DLM), vendor-specific deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR, high level), and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR, 70%) algorithms were employed. One hundred consecutive ultralow-dose noncontrast CT scans (CTDIvol; mean, 0.33 ± 0.056 mGy) were reconstructed with five algorithms: DLM-stnd (standard kernel), DLM-shrp (sharp kernel), DLIR, ASiR-stnd, and ASiR-shrp. Three thoracic radiologists blinded to the reconstruction algorithms reviewed five sets of 100 images and assessed subjective noise, spatial resolution, distortion artifact, and overall image quality. They selected the most preferred algorithm among five image sets for each case. Image noise and signal-to-noise ratio were measured. Edge-rise-distance was measured at a pulmonary vessel, i.e., the distance between two points where attenuation was 10% and 90% of maximal intravascular intensity. The skewness of attenuation was calculated in homogeneous areas. RESULTS: DLM-stnd, followed by DLIR, showed the best subjective noise on both lung and mediastinal windows, while DLIR yielded the least measured noise (ps < .0001). Compared to DLM-stnd, DLIR showed inferior subjective spatial resolution on lung window and higher edge-rise-distance (ps < .0001). Additionally, DLIR showed the most frequent distortion artifacts and deviated skewness (ps < .0001). DLM-stnd scored the best overall image quality, followed by DLM-shrp and DLIR (mean score 3.89 ± 0.19, 3.68 ± 0.24, and 3.53 ± 0.33; ps < .001). Two among three readers preferred DLM-stnd on both windows. CONCLUSION: Although DLIR provided the best quantitative noise profile, DLM-stnd showed the best overall image quality with fewer artifacts and was preferred by two among three readers. KEY POINTS: • A vendor-agnostic deep learning post-processing algorithm applied to ultralow-dose chest CT exhibited the best image quality compared to vendor-specific deep learning algorithm and ASiR techniques. • Two out of three readers preferred a vendor-agnostic deep learning post-processing algorithm in comparison to vendor-specific deep learning algorithm and ASiR techniques. • A vendor-specific deep learning reconstruction algorithm yielded the least image noise, but showed significantly more frequent specific distortion artifacts and increased skewness of attenuation compared to a vendor-agnostic algorithm.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality between the vendor-agnostic and vendor-specific algorithms on ultralow-dose chest CT. METHODS: Vendor-agnostic deep learning post-processing model (DLM), vendor-specific deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR, high level), and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR, 70%) algorithms were employed. One hundred consecutive ultralow-dose noncontrast CT scans (CTDIvol; mean, 0.33 ± 0.056 mGy) were reconstructed with five algorithms: DLM-stnd (standard kernel), DLM-shrp (sharp kernel), DLIR, ASiR-stnd, and ASiR-shrp. Three thoracic radiologists blinded to the reconstruction algorithms reviewed five sets of 100 images and assessed subjective noise, spatial resolution, distortion artifact, and overall image quality. They selected the most preferred algorithm among five image sets for each case. Image noise and signal-to-noise ratio were measured. Edge-rise-distance was measured at a pulmonary vessel, i.e., the distance between two points where attenuation was 10% and 90% of maximal intravascular intensity. The skewness of attenuation was calculated in homogeneous areas. RESULTS: DLM-stnd, followed by DLIR, showed the best subjective noise on both lung and mediastinal windows, while DLIR yielded the least measured noise (ps < .0001). Compared to DLM-stnd, DLIR showed inferior subjective spatial resolution on lung window and higher edge-rise-distance (ps < .0001). Additionally, DLIR showed the most frequent distortion artifacts and deviated skewness (ps < .0001). DLM-stnd scored the best overall image quality, followed by DLM-shrp and DLIR (mean score 3.89 ± 0.19, 3.68 ± 0.24, and 3.53 ± 0.33; ps < .001). Two among three readers preferred DLM-stnd on both windows. CONCLUSION: Although DLIR provided the best quantitative noise profile, DLM-stnd showed the best overall image quality with fewer artifacts and was preferred by two among three readers. KEY POINTS: • A vendor-agnostic deep learning post-processing algorithm applied to ultralow-dose chest CT exhibited the best image quality compared to vendor-specific deep learning algorithm and ASiR techniques. • Two out of three readers preferred a vendor-agnostic deep learning post-processing algorithm in comparison to vendor-specific deep learning algorithm and ASiR techniques. • A vendor-specific deep learning reconstruction algorithm yielded the least image noise, but showed significantly more frequent specific distortion artifacts and increased skewness of attenuation compared to a vendor-agnostic algorithm.