» Articles » PMID: 33693996

Deep Learning-based Reconstruction May Improve Non-contrast Cerebral CT Imaging Compared to Other Current Reconstruction Algorithms

Overview
Journal Eur Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2021 Mar 11
PMID 33693996
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate image quality and reconstruction times of a commercial deep learning reconstruction algorithm (DLR) compared to hybrid-iterative reconstruction (Hybrid-IR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithms for cerebral non-contrast CT (NCCT).

Methods: Cerebral NCCT acquisitions of 50 consecutive patients were reconstructed using DLR, Hybrid-IR and MBIR with a clinical CT system. Image quality, in terms of six subjective characteristics (noise, sharpness, grey-white matter differentiation, artefacts, natural appearance and overall image quality), was scored by five observers. As objective metrics of image quality, the noise magnitude and signal-difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR) of the grey and white matter were calculated. Mean values for the image quality characteristics scored by the observers were estimated using a general linear model to account for multiple readers. The estimated means for the reconstruction methods were pairwise compared. Calculated measures were compared using paired t tests.

Results: For all image quality characteristics, DLR images were scored significantly higher than MBIR images. Compared to Hybrid-IR, perceived noise and grey-white matter differentiation were better with DLR, while no difference was detected for other image quality characteristics. Noise magnitude was lower for DLR compared to Hybrid-IR and MBIR (5.6, 6.4 and 6.2, respectively) and SDNR higher (2.4, 1.9 and 2.0, respectively). Reconstruction times were 27 s, 44 s and 176 s for Hybrid-IR, DLR and MBIR respectively.

Conclusions: With a slight increase in reconstruction time, DLR results in lower noise and improved tissue differentiation compared to Hybrid-IR. Image quality of MBIR is significantly lower compared to DLR with much longer reconstruction times.

Key Points: • Deep learning reconstruction of cerebral non-contrast CT results in lower noise and improved tissue differentiation compared to hybrid-iterative reconstruction. • Deep learning reconstruction of cerebral non-contrast CT results in better image quality in all aspects evaluated compared to model-based iterative reconstruction. • Deep learning reconstruction only needs a slight increase in reconstruction time compared to hybrid-iterative reconstruction, while model-based iterative reconstruction requires considerably longer processing time.

Citing Articles

[Deep Learning Reconstruction Algorithm Combined With Smart Metal Artifact Reduction Technique Improves Image Quality of Upper Abdominal CT in Critically Ill Patients].

Pan Y, Yao X, Gao R, Xie W, Xia C, Li Z Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2025; 55(6):1403-1409.

PMID: 39990832 PMC: 11839371. DOI: 10.12182/20241160102.


Noise Reduction in Brain CT: A Comparative Study of Deep Learning and Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction Using Multiple Parameters.

Inoue Y, Itoh H, Hata H, Miyatake H, Mitsui K, Uehara S Tomography. 2024; 10(12):2073-2086.

PMID: 39728909 PMC: 11679002. DOI: 10.3390/tomography10120147.


Comparison of image quality between Deep learning image reconstruction and Iterative reconstruction technique for CT Brain- a pilot study.

Chandran M O, Pendem S, P S P, Chacko C, Priyanka , Kadavigere R F1000Res. 2024; 13:691.

PMID: 38962692 PMC: 11221345. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.150773.1.


A comparative analysis of deep learning and hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithms with contrast-enhancement-boost post-processing on the image quality of indirect computed tomography venography of the lower extremities.

Du H, Sui X, Zhao R, Wang J, Ming Y, Piao S BMC Med Imaging. 2024; 24(1):163.

PMID: 38956583 PMC: 11218076. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-024-01342-0.


Influence of deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for reducing radiation dose and image noise compared to iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection for head and chest computed tomography examinations: a systematic review.

Chandran M O, Pendem S, P S P, Chacko C, - P, Kadavigere R F1000Res. 2024; 13:274.

PMID: 38725640 PMC: 11079581. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.147345.1.


References
1.
Gordon R, Bender R, Herman G . Algebraic reconstruction techniques (ART) for three-dimensional electron microscopy and x-ray photography. J Theor Biol. 1970; 29(3):471-81. DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(70)90109-8. View

2.
Willemink M, de Jong P, Leiner T, de Heer L, Nievelstein R, Budde R . Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23(6):1623-31. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2765-y. View

3.
Willemink M, Leiner T, de Jong P, de Heer L, Nievelstein R, Schilham A . Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23(6):1632-42. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2764-z. View

4.
Scheffel H, Stolzmann P, Schlett C, Engel L, Major G, Karolyi M . Coronary artery plaques: cardiac CT with model-based and adaptive-statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 81(3):e363-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.11.051. View

5.
Stiller W . Basics of iterative reconstruction methods in computed tomography: A vendor-independent overview. Eur J Radiol. 2018; 109:147-154. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.10.025. View