A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D versus filtered back projection in CT: evaluation of image quality. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate image quality with filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D).

Materials And Methods: Phantom acquisitions were performed at six dose levels to assess spatial resolution, noise, and low-contrast detectability (LCD). Spatial resolution was assessed with the modulation transfer function at high and low contrast levels. Noise power spectrum and SD of attenuation were assessed. LCD was calculated with a mathematic model observer applied to phantom CT images. The subjective image quality of clinical CT scans was assessed by five radiologists.

Results: Compared with FBP, AIDR 3D resulted in substantial noise reduction at all frequencies with a similar shape of the noise power spectrum. Spatial resolution was similar for AIDR 3D and FBP. LCD improved with AIDR 3D, which was associated with a potential average dose reduction of 36% (range, 9-86%). The observer study showed that overall image quality improved and artifacts decreased with AIDR 3D.

Conclusion: AIDR 3D performs better than FBP with regard to noise and LCD, resulting in better image quality, and performs similarly with respect to spatial resolution. The evaluation of image quality of clinical CT scans was consistent with the objective assessment of image quality with a phantom. The amount of dose reduction should be investigated for each clinical indication in studies with larger numbers of patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9780DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

image quality
28
dose reduction
16
spatial resolution
16
adaptive iterative
8
iterative dose
8
filtered projection
8
evaluation image
8
noise power
8
power spectrum
8
quality clinical
8

Similar Publications