Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

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 access
Tang, Jie, Nett, Brian E, Chen, Guang-Hong·2009·Physics in Medicine and Biology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0031-9155/54/19/008

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Tang, J., Nett, B. E., & Chen, G.-H.
Venue
Physics in Medicine and Biology
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

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.