Scientific Abstracts and Sessions

dc.contributor.author

Ria, Francesco

dc.contributor.author

Smith, Taylor

dc.contributor.author

Abadi, Ehsan

dc.contributor.author

Solomon, Justin

dc.contributor.author

Samei, ehsan

dc.date.accessioned

2020-08-05T17:26:28Z

dc.date.available

2020-08-05T17:26:28Z

dc.date.issued

2020-06

dc.date.updated

2020-08-05T17:26:26Z

dc.description.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.

dc.identifier.issn

0094-2405

dc.identifier.issn

2473-4209

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/21284

dc.publisher

Wiley

dc.relation.ispartof

Medical Physics

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1002/mp.14316

dc.title

Scientific Abstracts and Sessions

dc.type

Conference

duke.contributor.orcid

Ria, Francesco|0000-0001-5902-7396

pubs.begin-page

e520

pubs.end-page

e520

pubs.issue

6

pubs.organisational-group

Staff

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

47

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
AAPM_2020_noise_methods_abstract_ria_v2.pdf
Size:
231.33 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version