The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A three‐dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT
Abstract
Multislice helical computed tomography scanning offers the advantages of faster acquisition and wide organ coverage for routine clinical diagnostic purposes. However, image reconstruction is faced with the challenges of three‐dimensional cone‐beam geometry, data completeness issues, and low dosage. Of all available reconstruction methods, statistical iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques appear particularly promising since they provide the flexibility of accurate physical noise modeling and geometric system description. In this paper, we present the application of Bayesian iterative algorithms to real 3D multislice helical data to demonstrate significant image quality improvement over conventional techniques. We also introduce a novel prior distribution designed to provide flexibility in its parameters to fine‐tune image quality. Specifically, enhanced image resolution and lower noise have been achieved, concurrently with the reduction of helical cone‐beam artifacts, as demonstrated by phantom studies. Clinical results also illustrate the capabilities of the algorithm on real patient data. Although computational load remains a significant challenge for practical development, superior image quality combined with advancements in computing technology make IR techniques a legitimate candidate for future clinical applications.
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
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
Cited by
Plug-and-Play priors for model based reconstruction
Venkatakrishnan, S. V., Bouman, C. A., & Wohlberg, B. (2013) · 2013 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing · doi:10.1109/globalsip.2013.6737048 · Cited by 1,178
Self-citationStrategies for Reducing Radiation Dose in CT
McCollough, C. H., Primak, A. N., Braun, N., Kofler, J., Yu, L., & Christner, J. (2009) · Radiologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.006 · Cited by 842
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
A Bias-Reducing Loss Function for CT Image Denoising
Nagare, M., Melnyk, R., Rahman, O., Sauer, K. D., & Bouman, C. A. (2021) · ICASSP 2021 - 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) · doi:10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9413855 · Cited by 20
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Thibault, J., Sauer, K. D., Bouman, C. A., & Hsieh, J.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-10-29
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 4526-4544
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- 2473-4209
- OpenAlex
- W2003624223
- Cited by
- 937
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.