Skip to main content
Duke University Libraries
DukeSpace Scholarship by Duke Authors
  • Login
  • Ask
  • Menu
  • Login
  • Ask a Librarian
  • Search & Find
  • Using the Library
  • Research Support
  • Course Support
  • Libraries
  • About
View Item 
  •   DukeSpace
  • Duke Scholarly Works
  • Research and Writings
  • View Item
  •   DukeSpace
  • Duke Scholarly Works
  • Research and Writings
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Scientific Abstracts and Sessions

Thumbnail
View / Download
231.3 Kb
Date
2020-06
Authors
Ria, Francesco
Smith, Taylor
Abadi, Ehsan
Solomon, Justin
Samei, ehsan
Repository Usage Stats
54
views
14
downloads
Abstract
Purpose Image quality estimation in CT is crucial for technology assessment, procedure optimization, and overall radiological benefit evaluation, with noise magnitude playing a key role. Over the years, several methods have been proposed to estimate noise surrogates in vivo. The most accurate approach is to assess ensemble noise by scanning a patient multiple times and sampling each pixel noise within the ensemble of images, an ethically undoable repeated imaging process. Such impasse can be surmounted using Virtual Imaging Trials (VITs) that use computer-based simulations to simulate clinically realistic scenarios. The purpose of this study was to compare two different noise magnitude estimation methods with the ensemble noise measured in a VIT population. Methods This study included a set of 47 XCAT-phantom repeated chest exams acquired virtually using a scanner-specific simulator (DukeSim) modeling a commercial scanner geometry, reconstructed with FBP and IR algorithms. Noise magnitudes were calculated in soft tissues (GNI) and air surrounding the patient (AIRn), applying [-300,100]HU and HU<-900 thresholds, respectively. Furthermore, for each pixel in GNI threshold, the ensemble noise magnitudes in soft tissues (En) were calculated across images. Noise magnitude from different methods were compared in terms of percentage difference with correspondent En median values. Results For FBP reconstructed images, median En was 30.6 HU; median GNI was 40.1 HU (+31%) and median AIRn was 25.1 HU (-18%). For IR images, median En was 19.5 HU; median GNI was 25.1 HU (+29%) and median AIRn was 18.8 HU (-4%). Conclusion Compared to ensemble noise, GNI overestimates the tissue noise by about 30%, while AIRn underestimates it by 4 to 18%, depending on the reconstruction used. These differences may be applied as adjustment or calibration factors to the related noise estimation methods to most closely represent clinical results. However, air noise cannot be assumed to represent tissue noise.
Type
Conference
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/21284
Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1002/mp.14316
Collections
  • Research and Writings
More Info
Show full item record

Scholars@Duke

Ria

Francesco Ria

Research Associate, Senior

Material is made available in this collection at the direction of authors according to their understanding of their rights in that material. You may download and use these materials in any manner not prohibited by copyright or other applicable law.

Rights for Collection: Research and Writings


Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info

Make Your Work Available Here

How to Deposit

Browse

All of DukeSpaceCommunities & CollectionsAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit Date

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
Duke University Libraries

Contact Us

411 Chapel Drive
Durham, NC 27708
(919) 660-5870
Perkins Library Service Desk

Digital Repositories at Duke

  • Report a problem with the repositories
  • About digital repositories at Duke
  • Accessibility Policy
  • Deaccession and DMCA Takedown Policy

TwitterFacebookYouTubeFlickrInstagramBlogs

Sign Up for Our Newsletter
  • Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
  • Harmful Language Statement
  • Support the Libraries
Duke University