Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 417

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Competitive performance of a modularized deep neural network compared to commercial algorithms for low-dose CT image reconstruction

Open access
Shan, Hongming, Padole, Atul, Homayounieh, Fatemeh, Kruger, Uwe, Khera, Ruhani Doda, Nitiwarangkul, Chayanin, Kalra, Mannudeep K., Wang, Ge·2019·Nature Machine Intelligence

Abstract

Commercial iterative reconstruction techniques help to reduce the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT), but altered image appearance and artefacts can limit their adoptability and potential use. Deep learning has been investigated for low-dose CT (LDCT). Here, we design a modularized neural network for LDCT and compare it with commercial iterative reconstruction methods from three leading CT vendors. Although popular networks are trained for an end-to-end mapping, our network performs an end-to-process mapping so that intermediate denoised images are obtained with associated noise reduction directions towards a final denoised image. The learned workflow allows radiologists in the loop to optimize the denoising depth in a task-specific fashion. Our network was trained with the Mayo LDCT Dataset and tested on separate chest and abdominal CT exams from Massachusetts General Hospital. The best deep learning reconstructions were systematically compared to the best iterative reconstructions in a double-blinded reader study. This study confirms that our deep learning approach performs either favourably or comparably in terms of noise suppression and structural fidelity, and is much faster than commercial iterative reconstruction algorithms. Reducing the radiation dose for medical CT scans can provide a less invasive imaging method, but requires a method for reconstructing an image up to the image quality from a full-dose scan. In this article, Wang and colleagues show that the deep learning approach, combined with the feedback from radiologists, produces higher quality reconstructions than or similar to that using the current commercial methods.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s42256-019-0057-9

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Shan, H., Padole, A., Homayounieh, F., Kruger, U., Khera, R. D., Nitiwarangkul, C., Kalra, M. K., & Wang, G.
Venue
Nature Machine Intelligence
Published
2019-06-10
Volume
1
Issue
6
Pages
269-276
ISSN
2522-5839 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3098281398
Cited by
417
References
7
FWCI
31.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.