Comparison of computational to human observer detection for evaluation of CT low dose iterative reconstruction

Model observers were created and compared to human observers for the detection of low contrast targets in computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with an advanced, knowledge-based, iterative image reconstruction method for low x-ray dose imaging. A 5-channel Laguerre-Gauss Hotelling Observer (CHO) was used with internal noise added to the decision variable (DV) and/or channel outputs (CO). Models were defined by parameters: (k1) DV-noise with standard deviation (std) proportional to DV std; (k2) DV-noise with constant std; (k3) CO-noise with constant std across channels; and (k4) CO-noise in each channel with std proportional to CO variance. Four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) human observer studies were performed on sub-images extracted from phantom images with and without a “pin” target. Model parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood comparison to human probability correct (PC) data. PC in human and all model observers increased with dose, contrast, and size, and was much higher for advanced iterative reconstruction (IMR) as compared to filtered back projection (FBP). Detection in IMR was better than FPB at 1/3 dose, suggesting significant dose savings. Model(k1,k2,k3,k4) gave the best overall fit to humans across independent variables (dose, size, contrast, and reconstruction) at fixed display window. However Model(k1) performed better when considering model complexity using the Akaike information criterion. Model(k1) fit the extraordinary detectability difference between IMR and FBP, despite the different noise quality. It is anticipated that the model observer will predict results from iterative reconstruction methods having similar noise characteristics, enabling rapid comparison of methods.

[1]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Validating the use of channels to estimate the ideal linear observer. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[2]  R Kötter,et al.  CT of the head by use of reduced current and kilovoltage: relationship between image quality and dose reduction. , 2000, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[3]  W J H Veldkamp,et al.  Automated assessment of low contrast sensitivity for CT systems using a model observer. , 2011, Medical physics.

[4]  Fabian Bamberg,et al.  CT evaluation of coronary artery stents with iterative image reconstruction: improvements in image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction , 2012, European Radiology.

[5]  Jovan G. Brankov,et al.  Optimization of the internal noise models for channelized Hotelling observer , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[6]  Mythreyi Bhargavan,et al.  MEDICAL RADIATION EXPOSURE IN THE U.S. IN 2006: PRELIMINARY RESULTS , 2008, Health physics.

[7]  A J Ahumada,et al.  Equivalent-noise model for contrast detection and discrimination. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[8]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Multimodel Inference , 2004 .

[9]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Incorporating Human Contrast Sensitivity in Model Observers for Detection Tasks , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  D. Mehta,et al.  INNOVATIONS ITERATIVE MODEL RECONSTRUCTION : SIMULTANEOUSLY LOWERED COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY RADIATION DOSE AND IMPROVED IMAGE QUALITY , 2013 .

[11]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Correlation between model observer and human observer performance in CT imaging when lesion location is uncertain , 2012, Medical Imaging.

[12]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. , 1981, Science.

[13]  I. Hernandez-Giron,et al.  Objective assessment of low contrast detectability for real CT phantom and in simulated images using a model observer , 2011, 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[14]  H.H. Barrett,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993, 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[15]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[16]  B. Dosher,et al.  Characterizing human perceptual inefficiencies with equivalent internal noise. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[17]  Eun-Ah Park,et al.  Iterative reconstruction of dual-source coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality and radiation dose , 2012, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[18]  A. Burgess.  Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. , 1995, Medical physics.

[19]  Hiroaki Sugiura,et al.  Dose reduction in chest CT: comparison of the adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D, adaptive iterative dose reduction, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[20]  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.

[21]  Andrew J. Einstein,et al.  Medical imaging: the radiation issue , 2009, Nature Reviews Cardiology.

[22]  Yanqing Hua,et al.  Comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in brain CT. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[23]  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.

[24]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Evaluation of internal noise methods for Hotelling observer models. , 2007, Medical physics.

[25]  Natalie N. Braun,et al.  Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. , 2009, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[26]  M. Körner,et al.  Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. , 2013, Radiology.

[27]  Katsuyuki Taguchi,et al.  Combination of a Low-Tube-Voltage Technique With Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction (iDose) Algorithm at Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography , 2011, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[28]  Anne Catrine Trægde Martinsen,et al.  Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[29]  Mani Vembar,et al.  A knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction algorithm: can super-low-dose cardiac CT be applicable in clinical settings? , 2014, Academic radiology.

[30]  Katsuyuki Taguchi,et al.  Achieving routine submillisievert CT scanning: report from the summit on management of radiation dose in CT. , 2012, Radiology.

[31]  A. Burgess.  Visual perception studies and observer models in medical imaging. , 2011, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[32]  R. Doll,et al.  Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  Mani Vembar,et al.  Dose reduction assessment in dynamic CT myocardial perfusion imaging in a porcine balloon-induced-ischemia model , 2014, Medical Imaging.