Practical Tradeoffs Between Noise, Resolution And Quantitation, And Number Of Iterations For Maximum Likelihood Reconstructions

Images reconstructed by the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method using different reconstruction kernels are compared with those using Filtered Backprojection (FBP). ML reconstruction with a single pixel (SP) kernel with or without a sieve filter shows no quantitative advantage over FBP except in the background where a reduction of noise is possible if the number of iterations is kept small (40). ML reconstruction using a Gaussian kernel with a multi-pixel full-width-at-halfmaximum and a large number of iterations (200) requires a sieve filtering step to reduce the noise and edge artifacts in the final images. These images have some small quantitative advantages over FBP depending on the structures being imaged. It is demonstrated that a feasibility stopping criterion controls the noise in a reconstructed image, but is insensitive to quantitation errors, and that the use of an appropriate overrelaxation parameter can accelerate the convergence of the ML method during the iterative process without quantitative instabilities.

[1]  Magnus Dahlbom,et al.  Quantitation of PET data with the EM reconstruction technique , 1989 .

[2]  David G. Politte Image improvements in positron-emission tomography due to measuring differential time-of-flight and using maximum-likelihood estimation , 1990 .

[3]  K. Lange,et al.  EM reconstruction algorithms for emission and transmission tomography. , 1984, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[4]  Robert M. Lewitt,et al.  Accelerated Iterative Reconstruction for Positron Emission Tomography Based on the EM Algorithm for Maximum Likelihood Estimation , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[5]  Edward J. Hoffman,et al.  Towards a Practical Implementation of the MLE Algorithm for Positron Emission Tomography , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[6]  T. M. Peters Algorithms for Fast Back- and Re-Projection in Computed Tomography , 1981 .

[7]  L. Shepp,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[8]  E. Veklerov,et al.  MLE reconstruction of a brain phantom using a Monte Carlo transition matrix and a statistical stopping rule , 1988 .

[9]  E. Veklerov,et al.  Stopping Rule for the MLE Algorithm Based on Statistical Hypothesis Testing , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  J Llacer,et al.  Feasible images and practical stopping rules for iterative algorithms in emission tomography. , 1989, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[11]  Eiichi Tanaka A Fast Reconstruction Algorthm for Stationary Positron Emission Tomography Based on a Modified EM Algorithm , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[12]  L. G. Byars,et al.  Positron emission tomographic images and expectation maximization: a VLSI architecture for multiple iterations per second , 1988 .

[13]  Eugene Veklerov,et al.  The feasibility of images reconstructed with the methods of sieves , 1990 .

[14]  R. Kessler,et al.  Analysis of emission tomographic scan data: limitations imposed by resolution and background. , 1984, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[15]  Michael I. Miller,et al.  The Use of Sieves to Stabilize Images Produced with the EM Algorithm for Emission Tomography , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[16]  D L Snyder,et al.  A hardware architecture using finite-field arithmetic for computing maximum-likelihood estimates in emission tomography. , 1988, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[17]  S. Holte,et al.  Iterative image reconstruction for positron emission tomography: a study of convergence and quantitation problems , 1990 .

[18]  L. J. Thomas,et al.  Noise and Edge Artifacts in Maximum-Likelihood Reconstructions for Emission Tomography , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.