Comparison of channelized hotelling and human observers in determining optimum OSEM reconstruction parameters for myocardial SPECT

The performance of the Channelized Hotelling Observer (CHO) was compared to that of human observers for determining optimum OSEM reconstruction parameters for the task of defect detection in myocardial SPECT images. The OSEM reconstruction parameters varied were the number subsets/iteration and the number of iterations. The optimum parameters were those that maximized defect detectability in the SPECT images. Low noise, parallel SPECT projection data, with and without an anterior, inferior or lateral LV wall defect, were simulated using Monte Carlo code. Poisson noise was added to generate noisy realizations. Data were reconstructed using OSEM at 1&4 subsets/iteration and at 1, 3, 5, 7&9 iterations. Images were converted to 2D short-axis with integer pixel values. The CHO used 7 radially-symmetric, 2D channels, with varying levels of internal observer noise. For each parameter setting, 200 defect-present and 200 defect-absent image vectors were used to calculate the AUC. The human observers rated the likelihood that a defect was present in a specified location. For each parameter setting AUC was estimated from 48 defect-present 48 defect-absent images. The CHO results showed that the ranking of the AUC values varied with varying levels of internal noise. The averaged human observer results showed the optimum parameter setting to be 1 subset/iteration and 5-9 iterations. In our study, the CHO performance matched the human observer performance at an internal observer noise level of /spl sim/15 used in the CHO. We conclude that addition of internal observer noise to the CHO is important. Further studies are needed to determine the dependence of the internal observer noise level on the type of images and the performance task for the CHO model to match human observer performance.

[1]  C. Metz ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

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

[3]  Michael A. King,et al.  An optimization of reconstruction parameters and investigation into the impact of photon scatter in /sup 67/Ga SPECT , 2002 .

[4]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Practical issues and methodology in assessment of image quality using model observers , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[5]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detectability with two noise components: anomalous masking effects. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[6]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detection. IV. Observer inconsistency. , 1988, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[7]  D. Lalush,et al.  Comparison of Hotelling observer models and human observers in defect detection from myocardial SPECT imaging , 1999 .

[8]  Eric C Frey,et al.  Assessment of scatter compensation strategies for (67)Ga SPECT using numerical observers and human LROC studies. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[10]  H H Barrett,et al.  Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[11]  William Paul Segars,et al.  Development of a new dynamic NURBS-based cardiac-torso (NCAT) phantom , 2001 .

[12]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[13]  Mu Chen,et al.  Observer Studies of Cardiac Lesion Detectability with Triple-Head 360 ◦ vs. Dual-Head 180 ◦ SPECT Acquisition Using Simulated Projection Data , 2001 .

[14]  Miles N. Wernick,et al.  Optimization of iterative reconstructions of /sup 99m/Tc cardiac SPECT studies using numerical observers , 2001 .

[15]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Hotelling trace criterion as a figure of merit for the optimization of imaging systems , 1986 .

[16]  Eric C Frey,et al.  Optimum compensation method and filter cutoff frequency in myocardial SPECT: a human observer study. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  M. S. Kaplan,et al.  Preliminary Experience With The Photon History Generator Module Of A Public-domain Simulation System For Emission Tomography , 1993, 1993 IEEE Conference Record Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference.

[18]  H H Barrett,et al.  Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[19]  Jinyi Qi Theoretical Evaluation of the Detectability of Random Lesions in Bayesian Emission Reconstruction , 2003, IPMI.

[20]  M.A. King,et al.  A comparison of human observer LROC and numerical observer ROC for tumor detection in SPECT images , 1998, 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.98CH36255).

[21]  Eric C. Frey,et al.  Application of task-based measures of image quality to optimization and evaluation of three-dimensional reconstruction-based compensation methods in myocardial perfusion SPECT , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.