Comparison of ADMIRE, SAFIRE, and Filtered Back Projection in Standard and Low-Dose Non-Enhanced Head CT.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Georg Gohla, Anja Örgel, Uwe Klose, Andreas Brendlin, Malte Niklas Bongers, Benjamin Bender, Deborah Staber, Ulrike Ernemann, Till-Karsten Hauser, Christer Ruff
{"title":"Comparison of ADMIRE, SAFIRE, and Filtered Back Projection in Standard and Low-Dose Non-Enhanced Head CT.","authors":"Georg Gohla, Anja Örgel, Uwe Klose, Andreas Brendlin, Malte Niklas Bongers, Benjamin Bender, Deborah Staber, Ulrike Ernemann, Till-Karsten Hauser, Christer Ruff","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics15121541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques were developed to address the shortcomings of filtered back projection (FBP), yet research comparing different types of IR is still missing. This work investigates how reducing radiation dose influences both image quality and noise profiles when using two iterative reconstruction techniques-Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction (SAFIRE) and Advanced Modeled Iterative Reconstruction (ADMIRE)-in comparison to filtered back projection (FBP) in non-enhanced head CT (NECT). <b>Methods</b>: In this retrospective single-center study, 21 consecutive patients underwent standard NECT on a 128-slice CT scanner. Raw data simulated dose reductions to 90% and 70% of the original dose via ReconCT software. For each dose level, images were reconstructed with FBP, SAFIRE 3, and ADMIRE 3. Image noise power spectra quantified objective image noise. Two blinded neuroradiologists scored overall image quality, image noise, image contrast, detail, and artifacts on a 10-point Likert scale in a consensus reading. Quantitative Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements were obtained in white and gray matter regions. Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, mixed-effects modeling, ANOVA, and post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. <b>Results</b>: Both iterative reconstructions significantly reduced image noise compared to FBP across all dose levels (<i>p</i> < 0.001). ADMIRE exhibited superior image noise suppression at low (<0.51 1/mm) and high (>1.31 1/mm) spatial frequencies, whereas SAFIRE performed better in the mid-frequency range (0.51-1.31 1/mm). Subjective scores for overall quality, image noise, image contrast, and detail were higher for ADMIRE and SAFIRE versus FBP at the original dose and simulated doses of 90% and 70% (all <i>p</i> < 0.001). ADMIRE outperformed SAFIRE in artifact reduction (<i>p</i> < 0.001), while SAFIRE achieved slightly higher image contrast scores (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Objective HU values remained stable across reconstruction methods, although SAFIRE yielded marginally higher gray and white matter (WM) attenuations (<i>p</i> < 0.01). <b>Conclusions</b>: Both IR techniques-ADMIRE and SAFIRE-achieved substantial noise reduction and improved image quality relative to FBP in non-enhanced head CT at standard and reduced dose levels on the specific CT system and reconstruction strength tested. ADMIRE showed enhanced suppression of low- and high-frequency image noise and fewer artifacts, while SAFIRE preserved image contrast and reduced mid-frequency noise. These findings support the potential of iterative reconstruction to optimize radiation dose in NECT protocols in line with the ALARA principle, although broader validation in multi-vendor, multi-center settings is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"15 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12192471/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15121541","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques were developed to address the shortcomings of filtered back projection (FBP), yet research comparing different types of IR is still missing. This work investigates how reducing radiation dose influences both image quality and noise profiles when using two iterative reconstruction techniques-Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction (SAFIRE) and Advanced Modeled Iterative Reconstruction (ADMIRE)-in comparison to filtered back projection (FBP) in non-enhanced head CT (NECT). Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 21 consecutive patients underwent standard NECT on a 128-slice CT scanner. Raw data simulated dose reductions to 90% and 70% of the original dose via ReconCT software. For each dose level, images were reconstructed with FBP, SAFIRE 3, and ADMIRE 3. Image noise power spectra quantified objective image noise. Two blinded neuroradiologists scored overall image quality, image noise, image contrast, detail, and artifacts on a 10-point Likert scale in a consensus reading. Quantitative Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements were obtained in white and gray matter regions. Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, mixed-effects modeling, ANOVA, and post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. Results: Both iterative reconstructions significantly reduced image noise compared to FBP across all dose levels (p < 0.001). ADMIRE exhibited superior image noise suppression at low (<0.51 1/mm) and high (>1.31 1/mm) spatial frequencies, whereas SAFIRE performed better in the mid-frequency range (0.51-1.31 1/mm). Subjective scores for overall quality, image noise, image contrast, and detail were higher for ADMIRE and SAFIRE versus FBP at the original dose and simulated doses of 90% and 70% (all p < 0.001). ADMIRE outperformed SAFIRE in artifact reduction (p < 0.001), while SAFIRE achieved slightly higher image contrast scores (p < 0.001). Objective HU values remained stable across reconstruction methods, although SAFIRE yielded marginally higher gray and white matter (WM) attenuations (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Both IR techniques-ADMIRE and SAFIRE-achieved substantial noise reduction and improved image quality relative to FBP in non-enhanced head CT at standard and reduced dose levels on the specific CT system and reconstruction strength tested. ADMIRE showed enhanced suppression of low- and high-frequency image noise and fewer artifacts, while SAFIRE preserved image contrast and reduced mid-frequency noise. These findings support the potential of iterative reconstruction to optimize radiation dose in NECT protocols in line with the ALARA principle, although broader validation in multi-vendor, multi-center settings is warranted.

标准和低剂量非增强头部CT的钦佩、SAFIRE和滤波后投影比较。
背景/目的:迭代重建(IR)技术是为了解决滤波后投影(FBP)的缺点而开发的,但比较不同类型IR的研究仍然缺失。本研究探讨了在非增强头部CT (NECT)中,与滤波后投影(FBP)相比,在使用两种迭代重建技术——中文图确认迭代重建(SAFIRE)和高级建模迭代重建(钦佩)时,降低辐射剂量如何影响图像质量和噪声分布。方法:在这项回顾性单中心研究中,21例连续患者在128层CT扫描仪上接受了标准的NECT。原始数据通过ReconCT软件模拟剂量减少到原始剂量的90%和70%。对于每个剂量水平,使用FBP、SAFIRE 3和钦佩3重建图像。图像噪声功率谱量化客观图像噪声。两名盲法神经放射学家对整体图像质量、图像噪声、图像对比度、细节和伪影进行了10分的李克特评分,得出了一致的读数。在白质和灰质区域获得定量的Hounsfield单位(HU)测量。统计分析包括Wilcoxon sign -rank检验、混合效应模型、方差分析和Bonferroni校正的事后两两比较。结果:与FBP相比,两种迭代重建在所有剂量水平下都显著降低了图像噪声(p < 0.001)。在低(1.31 1/mm)空间频率下,钦佩具有较好的图像噪声抑制效果,而SAFIRE在中频(0.51-1.31 1/mm)范围内表现较好。在原始剂量和模拟剂量分别为90%和70%时,与FBP相比,钦佩和SAFIRE在总体质量、图像噪声、图像对比度和细节方面的主观评分更高(均p < 0.001)。在伪像减少方面,钦佩优于SAFIRE (p < 0.001),而SAFIRE获得了稍高的图像对比度分数(p < 0.001)。目的:在所有重建方法中,HU值保持稳定,尽管SAFIRE产生了较高的灰质和白质(WM)衰减(p < 0.01)。结论:红外techniques-ADMIRE和SAFIRE-achieved实质性降噪和改善图像质量相对于FBP non-enhanced头部CT标准和减少剂量水平在特定的CT系统和重建强度测试。钦佩增强了对低频和高频图像噪声的抑制,减少了伪影,而SAFIRE保留了图像对比度,降低了中频噪声。这些发现支持了迭代重建在符合ALARA原则的NECT方案中优化辐射剂量的潜力,尽管需要在多供应商、多中心设置中进行更广泛的验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信