Impact of number of repeated scans on model observer performance for a low-contrast detection task in CT

In previous investigations on CT image quality, channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) models have been shown to well represent human observer performance in several phantom-based detection/discrimination tasks. In these studies, a large number of independent images was necessary to estimate the expectation images and covariance matrices for each test condition. The purpose of this study is to investigate how the number of repeated scans affects the precision and accuracy of the CHO’s performance in a signal-known-exactly detection task. A phantom containing 21 low-contrast objects (3 contrast levels and 7 sizes) was scanned with a 128-slice CT scanner at three dose levels. For each dose level, 100 independent images were acquired for each test condition. All images were reconstructed using filtered-backprojection (FBP) and a commercial iterative reconstruction algorithm. For each combination of dose level and reconstruction method, the low-contrast detectability, quantified with the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (Az), was calculated using a previously validated CHO model. To determine the dependency of CHO performance on the number of repeated scans, the Az value was calculated for different number of channel filters, for each object size and contrast, and for different dose/reconstruction settings using all 100 repeated scans. The Az values were also calculated using randomly selected subsets of the scans (from 10 to 90 scans with an increment of 10 scans). Using the Az from the 100 scans as the reference, the accuracy of Az values calculated from a fewer number of scans was determined and the minimal number of scans was subsequently derived. For the studied signal-known-exactly detection task, results demonstrated that, the minimal number of scans depends on dose level, object size and contrast level, and channel filters.

[1]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Adaptive detection mechanisms in globally statistically nonstationary-oriented noise. , 2006, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[2]  Richard L. Van Metter,et al.  Handbook of Medical Imaging , 2009 .

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

[4]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Finite-sample effects and resampling plans: applications to linear classifiers in computer-aided diagnosis , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[5]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[6]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[7]  Jay Bartroff,et al.  Automated computer evaluation and optimization of image compression of x-ray coronary angiograms for signal known exactly detection tasks. , 2003, Optics express.

[8]  Yi Zhang,et al.  Correlation between human and model observer performance for discrimination task in CT , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  D. DeLong,et al.  Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis. , 2007, Medical physics.

[10]  I Reiser,et al.  SU-E-I-46: Sample-Size Dependence of Model Observers for Estimating Low-Contrast Detection Performance From CT Images. , 2014, Medical physics.

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

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

[13]  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.