Volume rendering in the presence of partial volume effects

In tomographic images, partial volume effects (PVE) cause several artifacts in volume renditions. In x-ray CT, for example, soft-tissue-like pseudo structures appear in bone-to-air and bone-to-fat interfaces. Further, skin, which is identical to soft tissue in terms of CT number, obscures the rendition of the latter. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate these phenomena and to provide effective solutions that yield significantly improved renditions. Here, we introduce two methods that detect and classify voxels with PVE in x-ray CT. A method is described to automatically peel skin so that PVE-resolved renditions of bone and soft tissue reveal considerably more details. In the first method, the fraction of each tissue material in each voxel v is estimated by taking into account the intensities of the voxels neighboring v. The second method is based on the following postulate (IEEE PAMI, vol. 23 pp. 689- 706, 2001): In any acquired image, voxels with the highest uncertainty occur in the vicinity of object boundaries. The removal of skin is achieved by means of mathematical morphology. Volume renditions have been created before and after applying the methods for several patient CT datasets. A mathematical phantom experiment involving different levels of PVE has been conducted by adding different degrees of noise and blurring. A quantitative evaluation is done utilizing the mathematical phantom and clinical CT data wherein an operator carefully masked out voxels with PVE in the segmented images. All results have demonstrated the enhanced quality of display of bone and soft tissue after applying the proposed methods. The quantitative evaluations indicate that more than 98% of the voxels with PVE are removed by the two methods and the second method performs slightly better than the first. Further, skin peeling vividly reveals fine details in the soft tissue structures.

[1]  H. Donald Gage,et al.  Statistical models of partial volume effect , 1995, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[2]  Carl-Fredrik Westin,et al.  Tissue Classification Based on 3D Local Intensity Structures for Volume Rendering , 2000, IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph..

[3]  Pat Hanrahan,et al.  Volume Rendering , 2020, Definitions.

[4]  Jayaram K. Udupa,et al.  Shell rendering , 1993, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[5]  Jean Serra,et al.  Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology , 1983 .

[6]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Introduction to volume visualization and its biomedical applications , 1992, Other Conferences.

[7]  Michael J. Ackerman,et al.  The Visible Human Project of the National Library of Medicine: Remote access and distribution of a multi-gigabyte data set , 1993 .

[8]  Jayaram K. Udupa,et al.  Surface and volume rendering in 3D imaging: a comparison , 1991 .

[9]  Jayaram K. Udupa,et al.  Optimum Image Thresholding via Class Uncertainty and Region Homogeneity , 2001, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[10]  M Vembar,et al.  Reduced partial volume artifacts using spiral computed tomography and an integrating interpolator. , 1999, Medical physics.

[11]  Dewey Odhner,et al.  3DVIEWNIX: an open, transportable, multidimensional, multimodality, multiparametric imaging software system , 1994, Medical Imaging.

[12]  Gerald Q. Maguire,et al.  Quantitative And Qualitative Comparison Of Volumetric And Surface Rendering Techniques , 1990, 1990 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[13]  Jayaram K. Udupa,et al.  Scale-Based Fuzzy Connected Image Segmentation: Theory, Algorithms, and Validation , 2000, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[14]  J Beier,et al.  [Morphologic image processing operators: reduction of partial volume effects for improved 3D visualization of CT data]. , 1998, Der Radiologe.