Correlation of Automated in Vivo Image Quality With Radiologist's Performance in Abdomen Computed Tomography Across Conventional and Deep Learning Reconstructions.
| dc.contributor.author | Zarei, Mojtaba | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ria, Francesco | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jensen, Corey T | |
| dc.contributor.author | Liu, Xinming | |
| dc.contributor.author | Abbey, Craig K | |
| dc.contributor.author | Samei, Ehsan | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-01-21T23:45:34Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-01-21T23:45:34Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2026-01 | |
| dc.description.abstract | ObjectiveImage quality evaluation in radiology is most relevant when reflects radiologists' performance. This study assessed how image quality measurement in terms of in vivo-characterized detectability index () for low-contrast liver lesion assessment in CT is correlated with radiologists' performance across 2 different CT reconstructions.MethodsFifty-one contrast-enhanced abdominal studies for investigating colorectal liver metastases were prospectively performed using 2 radiation dose exposures and reconstructed with Filtered back projection (FBP) and deep learning image reconstruction (DL) algorithms for a total of 161 noncalcified hypoattenuating lesions for 3 lesion size (D) subsets (<6 mm, 6 to 10 mm, and >10 mm). Images were assessed by expert radiologists for hepatic lesion detection task and likelihood of malignancy across the 2 imaging conditions. All cases were also evaluated automatically in terms of in vivo as a metric of task-based performance, both using a conventional technique and a new formalism of an added frequency term in the internal noise component of to accommodate the nonlinearity of the DL reconstruction (adj).ResultsThe study found conventionally defined d' well-reflective of radiologists' evaluation of FBP images but not well-aligned with that of DL images. The new formalism provided more consistent reflection of performance across reconstruction techniques. In particular, in the lesion group D <=6 mm, the difference between radiologists' accuracy in images acquired with DL and images acquired with FBP was -26%, and the related adj difference was -9%, whereas the was 34%. Analogously, for the lesion group 6 mm < D <=10 mm, the differences were -15%, -13%, and 29%, respectively. Lastly, for the lesion group D>10 mm, radiologists showed the same accuracy in both FPB and DL images, difference in adj was -11%, and difference in was 31%.ConclusionThe new formalism can robustly reflect CT systems clinical performance irrespective of reconstruction algorithm. The methodology can be more readily applied to assess the real-world performance of CT systems. | |
| dc.identifier | 00004728-990000000-00538 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0363-8715 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1532-3145 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | ||
| dc.language | eng | |
| dc.publisher | Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of computer assisted tomography | |
| dc.relation.isversionof | 10.1097/rct.0000000000001845 | |
| dc.rights.uri | ||
| dc.subject | clinical CT performance | |
| dc.subject | deep learning reconstruction | |
| dc.subject | detectability index | |
| dc.subject | radiologists’ performance | |
| dc.title | Correlation of Automated in Vivo Image Quality With Radiologist's Performance in Abdomen Computed Tomography Across Conventional and Deep Learning Reconstructions. | |
| dc.type | Journal article | |
| duke.contributor.orcid | Ria, Francesco|0000-0001-5902-7396 | |
| pubs.organisational-group | Duke | |
| pubs.organisational-group | School of Medicine | |
| pubs.organisational-group | Clinical Science Departments | |
| pubs.organisational-group | Institutes and Centers | |
| pubs.organisational-group | Radiology | |
| pubs.organisational-group | Duke Cancer Institute | |
| pubs.publication-status | Published |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- Correlation_of_automated_in_vivo_image_quality_Zarei-Ria_et_at_2026_JCAT.pdf
- Size:
- 1.01 MB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
- Published version