Low contrast detectability in CT for human and model observers in multi-slice data sets

Task-based medical image quality is often assessed by model observers for single slice images. The goal of the study was to determine if model observers can predict human detection performance of low contrast signals in CT for clinical multi-slice (ms) images. We collected 24 different data subsets from a low contrast phantom: 3 dose levels (40, 90, 150 mAs), 4 signals (6 and 8 mm diameter; 10 and 20 HU at 120kV) and 2 reconstruction algorithms (FBP and iterative (IR)). Images were assessed by human and model observers in 4-alternative forced choice (4AFC) experiments with ms data set in a signal-known-exactly (SKE) paradigm. Model observers with single (msCHOa) and multiple (msCHOb) templates were implemented in a train and test method analysis with Dense Difference of Gaussian (DDoG) and Gabor spatial channels. For human observers, we found that percent correct increased with the dose and was higher for iterative reconstructed images than FBP in all investigated conditions. All model observers implemented overestimated human performance in any condition except one case (6mm and 10HU) for msCHOa and msCHOb with Gabor channels. Internal noise could be implemented and a good agreement was found but necessitates independent fits according to the reconstruction method. Generally msCHOb shows higher detection performance than msCHOa with both types of channels. Gabor channels were less efficient than DDoG in this context. These results allow further developments in 3D analysis technique for low contrast CT.

[1]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993 .

[2]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Correlation between model observer and human observer performance in CT imaging when lesion location is uncertain. , 2013, Medical physics.

[3]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Prediction of human observer performance in a 2-alternative forced choice low-contrast detection task using channelized Hotelling observer: impact of radiation dose and reconstruction algorithms. , 2013, Medical physics.

[4]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[5]  Ronald J. Jaszczak,et al.  Using the Hotelling observer on multi-slice and multi-view simulated SPECT myocardial images , 2001 .

[6]  A E Burgess Visual signal detection with two-component noise: low-pass spectrum effects. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[7]  H H Barrett,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[8]  Richard Wakeford,et al.  Risks from CT scans—what do recent studies tell us? , 2014, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[9]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Quantum noise properties of CT images with anatomical textured backgrounds across reconstruction algorithms: FBP and SAFIRE. , 2014, Medical physics.

[10]  Abbas Aroua,et al.  EXPOSURE OF THE SWISS POPULATION BY MEDICAL X-RAYS: 2008 REVIEW , 2012, Health physics.

[11]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Role of knowledge in human visual temporal integration in spatiotemporal noise. , 1996, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[12]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  Volumetric model and human observer comparisons of tumor detection for whole-body positron emission tomography. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[13]  Ewout Vansteenkiste,et al.  Channelized Hotelling observers for the assessment of volumetric imaging data sets. , 2011, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[14]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Multireader multicase variance analysis for binary data. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.