| Literature DB >> 35800236 |
Xiaoxia Chen1, Xiao Bai2, Xin Shu3, Xucheng He3, Jinjing Zhao4, Xiaodong Guo5, Guisheng Wang1.
Abstract
To apply deconvolution algorithm in computer tomography (CT) perfusion imaging of acute cerebral infarction (ACI), a convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm was optimized first. RIU-Net was applied to segment CT image, and then equipped with SE module to enhance the feature extraction ability. Next, the BM3D algorithm, Dn CNN, and Cascaded CNN were compared for denoising effects. 80 patients with ACI were recruited and grouped for a retrospective analysis. The control group utilized the ordinary method, and the observation group utilized the algorithm proposed. The optimized model was utilized to extract the feature information of the patient's CT images. The results showed that after the SE module pooling was added to the RIU-Net network, the utilization rate of the key features was raised. The specificity of patients in observation group was 98.7%, the accuracy was 93.7%, and the detected number was (1.6 ± 0.2). The specificity of patients in the control group was 93.2%, the accuracy was 87.6%, and the detected number was (1.3 ± 0.4). Obviously, the observation group was superior to the control group in all respects (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the optimized model demonstrates superb capabilities in image denoising and image segmentation. It can accurately extract the information to diagnose ACI, which is suggested clinically.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35800236 PMCID: PMC9192278 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8728468
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Traditional image recognition process.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of image recognition flowchart.
Figure 3Schematic diagrams of full connection and convolutional form.
Figure 4The calculation process of CNN.
Figure 5Schematic diagram of BM3D.
Figure 6DnCNN structure.
Figure 7The Cascaded CNN structure.
Figure 8Comparison of CT images of the brain.
Figure 9Flow chart of image segmentation.
Comparison of denoising performance.
| Method | PSNR | RMSE | SSLM |
|---|---|---|---|
| BM3D | 32.46 | 9.786 | 32.68 |
| Low dose | 29.14 | 14.00 | 0.826 |
| High dose | 33.01 | 9.052 | 0.948 |
Figure 10Slice effect diagram.
Figure 11ACI CT images and segmentation results.
Efficacy of two groups.
| Sensitivity (%) | Number of lesions detected | Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 93.2 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 87.6 |
| Observation group | 98.7 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 93.7 |
The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).