Joël Greffier, Alexa Liogier, Maxime Pastor, Fabien de Oliveira, Quentin Chaine, Skander Sammoud, Jean Paul Beregi, Djamel Dabli
{"title":"Deep-learning image reconstruction algorithms for CT: A task-based image quality assessment of four CT systems using a phantom","authors":"Joël Greffier, Alexa Liogier, Maxime Pastor, Fabien de Oliveira, Quentin Chaine, Skander Sammoud, Jean Paul Beregi, Djamel Dabli","doi":"10.1016/j.diii.2026.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of iterative reconstruction (IR) and deep-learning image reconstruction (DLR) algorithms developed by four CT vendors in terms of image quality.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Acquisitions were performed on an image quality phantom at three dose levels (1.8, 6 and 11 mGy) using four CT systems (further referred to as G-CT, P-CT, U-CT, and C-CT). For each CT, raw data were reconstructed using the commonly used soft tissue kernel and level for IR and DLR algorithms. Noise power spectrum and task-based transfer function were computed to assess noise magnitude, noise texture (f<sub>av</sub>) and spatial resolution, respectively. Detectability indexes (<em>d</em>’) were computed to model the detection of two abdominal lesions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Compared to IR, noise magnitude reduction with DLR was similar for all dose levels for G-CT (-21.1 ± 1.5 [standard deviation (SD)] %) and P-CT (-48.4 ± 0.1 [SD] %) but more pronounced at 1.8 mGy and decreased as the dose level increased for U-CT and C-CT. Noise texture was greater with DLR than IR at all dose levels for all CT systems, except for U-CT, which gave similar f<sub>av</sub> values. For both inserts, spatial resolution was better with DLR than with IR for all CT systems, except for the low-contrast insert with C-CT at 1.8 and 6 mGy and P-CT at 1.8 mGy. For both simulated lesions and all dose levels, <em>d</em>’ values were greater with DLR than with IR by 77.5 ± 8.7 (SD) % for C-CT, 33.7 ± 5.6 (SD) % for G-CT, 112.7 ± 4.7 (SD) % for P-CT and from 158.3 % to 546.6 % on average for U-CT.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Compared to IR, DLR algorithms reduce the image noise and improve detectability whilst providing similar or better noise texture and spatial resolution.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48656,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging","volume":"107 7","pages":"Pages 256-264"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211568426000033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of iterative reconstruction (IR) and deep-learning image reconstruction (DLR) algorithms developed by four CT vendors in terms of image quality.
Materials and methods
Acquisitions were performed on an image quality phantom at three dose levels (1.8, 6 and 11 mGy) using four CT systems (further referred to as G-CT, P-CT, U-CT, and C-CT). For each CT, raw data were reconstructed using the commonly used soft tissue kernel and level for IR and DLR algorithms. Noise power spectrum and task-based transfer function were computed to assess noise magnitude, noise texture (fav) and spatial resolution, respectively. Detectability indexes (d’) were computed to model the detection of two abdominal lesions.
Results
Compared to IR, noise magnitude reduction with DLR was similar for all dose levels for G-CT (-21.1 ± 1.5 [standard deviation (SD)] %) and P-CT (-48.4 ± 0.1 [SD] %) but more pronounced at 1.8 mGy and decreased as the dose level increased for U-CT and C-CT. Noise texture was greater with DLR than IR at all dose levels for all CT systems, except for U-CT, which gave similar fav values. For both inserts, spatial resolution was better with DLR than with IR for all CT systems, except for the low-contrast insert with C-CT at 1.8 and 6 mGy and P-CT at 1.8 mGy. For both simulated lesions and all dose levels, d’ values were greater with DLR than with IR by 77.5 ± 8.7 (SD) % for C-CT, 33.7 ± 5.6 (SD) % for G-CT, 112.7 ± 4.7 (SD) % for P-CT and from 158.3 % to 546.6 % on average for U-CT.
Conclusion
Compared to IR, DLR algorithms reduce the image noise and improve detectability whilst providing similar or better noise texture and spatial resolution.
期刊介绍:
Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging accepts publications originating from any part of the world based only on their scientific merit. The Journal focuses on illustrated articles with great iconographic topics and aims at aiding sharpening clinical decision-making skills as well as following high research topics. All articles are published in English.
Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging publishes editorials, technical notes, letters, original and review articles on abdominal, breast, cancer, cardiac, emergency, forensic medicine, head and neck, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, interventional, obstetric, pediatric, thoracic and vascular imaging, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, as well as contrast material, computer developments, health policies and practice, and medical physics relevant to imaging.