The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Filtered Back Projection, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and a Model-based Iterative Reconstruction in Abdominal CT: An Experimental Clinical Study
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare objective and subjective image quality parameters of three image reconstruction algorithms of different generations at routine multidetector computed tomographic (CT) examinations of the abdomen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved study included 22 consecutive patients (mean age, 56.1 years ± 15.8 [standard deviation]; mean weight, 79.1 kg ± 14.8) who underwent routine CT examinations of the abdomen. A low-contrast phantom was used for objective quality control. Raw data sets were reconstructed by using filtered back projection (FPB), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and a model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR). Radiologists used a semiquantitative scale (-3 to +3) to rate subjective image quality and artifacts, comparing both FBP and MBIR images with ASIR images. The Wilcoxon test and the intraclass correlation coefficient were used to evaluate the data. Measurements of objective noise and CT numbers of soft tissue structures were compared with analysis of variance. RESULTS: The phantom study revealed an improved detectability of low-contrast targets for MBIR compared with ASIR or FBP. Subjective ratings showed higher image quality for MBIR, with better resolution (median value, 2; range, 1 to 3), lower noise (2; range, 1 to 3), and finer contours (2; range, 1 to 2) compared with ASIR (all P < .001). FBP performed inferiorly (0, range, -2 to 0]; -1 [range, -3 to 0]; 0 [range, -1 to 0], respectively; all, P < .001). Mean interobserver correlation was 0.9 for image perception and 0.7 for artifacts. Objective noise for FBP was 14%-68% higher and for MBIR was 18%-47% lower than that for ASIR (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The MBIR algorithm considerably improved objective and subjective image quality parameters of routine abdominal multidetector CT images compared with those of ASIR and FBP.
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
Cited by
Deep learning with convolutional neural network in radiology
Yasaka, K., Akai, H., Kunimatsu, A., Kiryu, S., & Abe, O. (2018) · Japanese Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1007/s11604-018-0726-3 · Cited by 368
Deep learning reconstruction improves image quality of abdominal ultra-high-resolution CT
Akagi, M., Nakamura, Y., Higaki, T., Narita, K., Honda, Y., Zhou, J., Yu, Z., Akino, N., & Awai, K. (2019) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06170-3 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Deák, Z., Grimm, J. M., Treitl, M., Geyer, L. L., Linsenmaier, U., Körner, M., Reiser, M. F., & Wirth, S.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 266
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 197-206
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2017579767
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.14
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Filtered Back Projection, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and a Model-based Iterative Reconstruction in Abdominal CT: An Experimental Clinical Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.12112707
- The paper
- Deák, Z., Grimm, J. M., Treitl, M., Geyer, L. L., Linsenmaier, U., Körner, M., Reiser, M. F., & Wirth, S. (2013). Filtered Back Projection, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and a Model-based Iterative Reconstruction in Abdominal CT: An Experimental Clinical Study. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112707
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.