The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance comparison between total variation (TV)-based compressed sensing and statistical iterative reconstruction algorithms
Open accessAbstract
Of all available reconstruction methods, statistical iterative reconstruction algorithms appear particularly promising since they enable accurate physical noise modeling. The newly developed compressive sampling/compressed sensing (CS) algorithm has shown the potential to accurately reconstruct images from highly undersampled data. The CS algorithm can be implemented in the statistical reconstruction framework as well. In this study, we compared the performance of two standard statistical reconstruction algorithms (penalized weighted least squares and q-GGMRF) to the CS algorithm. In assessing the image quality using these iterative reconstructions, it is critical to utilize realistic background anatomy as the reconstruction results are object dependent. A cadaver head was scanned on a Varian Trilogy system at different dose levels. Several figures of merit including the relative root mean square error and a quality factor which accounts for the noise performance and the spatial resolution were introduced to objectively evaluate reconstruction performance. A comparison is presented between the three algorithms for a constant undersampling factor comparing different algorithms at several dose levels. To facilitate this comparison, the original CS method was formulated in the framework of the statistical image reconstruction algorithms. Important conclusions of the measurements from our studies are that (1) for realistic neuro-anatomy, over 100 projections are required to avoid streak artifacts in the reconstructed images even with CS reconstruction, (2) regardless of the algorithm employed, it is beneficial to distribute the total dose to more views as long as each view remains quantum noise limited and (3) the total variation-based CS method is not appropriate for very low dose levels because while it can mitigate streaking artifacts, the images exhibit patchy behavior, which is potentially harmful for medical diagnosis.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Principles of Computerized Tomographic Imaging
Kak, A. C., & Slaney, M. (2001) · doi:10.1137/1.9780898719277 · Cited by 5,809
Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography
Shepp, L. A., & Vardi, Y. (1982) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.1982.4307558 · Cited by 4,429
Sidky, E. Y., & Pan, X. (2008) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/53/17/021 · Cited by 1,995
Cited by
Noise correlation in CBCT projection data and its application for noise reduction in low‐dose CBCT
Zhang, H., Ouyang, L., Ma, J., Huang, J., Chen, W., & Wang, J. (2014) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.4865782 · Cited by 47
Wu, J., Wang, X., Mou, X., Chen, Y., & Liu, S. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20061647 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Tang, J., Nett, B. E., & Chen, G.-H.
- Venue
- Physics in Medicine and Biology
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2009-09-09
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 5781-5804
- ISSN
- 0031-9155 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6560
- OpenAlex
- W2011315295
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 19.90
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance comparison between total variation (TV)-based compressed sensing and statistical iterative reconstruction algorithms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0031-9155/54/19/008
- The paper
- Tang, J., Nett, B. E., & Chen, G.-H. (2009). Performance comparison between total variation (TV)-based compressed sensing and statistical iterative reconstruction algorithms. Physics in Medicine and Biology. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/19/008
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.