Skip to main content

Impact of statistical reconstruction and compressed sensing algorithms on projection data elimination during X-ray CT image reconstruction

Abstract

Objectives

To examine the effect of incomplete, or total elimination of, projection data on computed tomography (CT) images subjected to statistical reconstruction and/or compressed sensing algorithms.

Methods

Multidetector row CT images were used. The algebraic reconstruction technique (ART) and the maximum likelihood-expectation maximization (ML-EM) method were compared with filtered back-projection (FBP). Effects on reconstructed images were studied when the projection data of 360° (360 projections) were decreased to 180 or 90 projections by reducing the collection angle or thinning the image data. The total variation (TV) regularization method using compressed sensing was applied to images processed by the ART. Image noise was subjectively evaluated using the root-mean-square error and signal-to-noise ratio.

Results

When projection data were reduced by one-half or three-quarters, ART and ML-EM produced better image quality than FBP. Both ART and ML-EM resulted in high quality at a spread of 90 projections over 180° rotation. Computational loading was high for statistical reconstruction, but not for ML-EM, compared with the ART. TV regularization made it possible to use only 36 projections while still achieving acceptable image quality.

Conclusions

Incomplete projection data—accomplished by reducing the angle to collect image data or thinning the projection data without reducing the angle of rotation over which it is collected—made it possible to reduce the radiation dose while retaining image quality with statistical reconstruction algorithms and/or compressed sensing. Despite heavier computational calculation loading, these methods should be considered for reducing radiation doses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Pan X, Sidky EY, Vannier M. Why do commercial CT scanners still employ traditional, filtered back-projection for image reconstruction? Inverse Probl. 2009;25:1230009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:191–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fleischmann D, Boas FE. Computed tomography—old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:510–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA. Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med. 2012;28:94–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rashed EA, Kudo H. Statistical image reconstruction from limited projection data with intensity priors. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:2039–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rashed EA, Kudo H. Probabilistic atlas prior for CT image reconstruction. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2016;128:119–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schmid AI, Uder M, Lell MM. Reaching for better image quality and lower radiation dose in head and neck CT: advanced modeled and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction in combination with tube voltage adaptation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46:20160131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Widmann G, Bischel A, Stratis A, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Gassner EM, et al. Spatial and contrast resolution of ultralow dose dentomaxillofacial CT imaging using iterative reconstruction technology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46:20160452.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363:345–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Donoho DL. Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 2006;52:1289–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baraniuk RG, Candes E, Elad M, Ma Y. Special Issue: applications of sparse representation and compressive sensing. Proc IEEE. 2010;98:906–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sidky EY, Pan X. Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:4777–807.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kudo H, Suzuki T, Rashed EA. Image reconstruction for sparse-view CT and interior CT: introduction to compressed sensing and differentiated backprojection. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2013;3:147–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kondo A, Hayakawa Y, Dong J, Honda A. Iterative correction applied to streak artifact reduction in an X-ray computed tomography image of the dento-alveolar region. Oral Radiol. 2010;26:61–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dong J, Kondo A, Abe K, Hayakawa Y. Successive iterative restoration applied to streak artifact reduction in X-ray CT image of dento-alveolar region. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2011;6:635–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dong J, Hayakawa Y, Kannenberg S, Kober C. Metal-induced streak artifact reduction using iterative reconstruction algorithms in X-ray computed tomography image of the dentoalveolar region. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115:e63–e73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dong J, Hayakawa Y, Kober C. Statistical iterative reconstruction for streak artefact reduction when using multidetector CT to image the dento-alveolar structures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43:20130373.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sidky EY, Kao CM, Pan X. Accurate image reconstruction from few-views and limited-angle data in divergent-beam CT. J X-ray Sci Technol. 2006;14:119–39. http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4495v1).

  19. Siltanen S, Kolehmainen V, Järvenpää S, Kaipio JP, Koistinen P, Lassas M, et al. Statistical inversion for medical X-ray tomography with few radiographs: I. General theory. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:1437–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kolehmainen V, Siltanen S, Järvenpää S, Kaipio JP, Koistinen P, Lassas M, et al. Statistical inversion for medical X-ray tomography with few radiographs: II. Application to dental radiology. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:1465–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rose S, Andersen MS, Sidky EY, Pan X. Noise properties of CT images reconstructed by use of constrained total-variation, data-discrepancy minimization. Med Phys. 2015;42:2690–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Dong J, Kudo H. Proposal of compressed sensing using nonlinear sparsifying transform for CT image reconstruction. Med Imaging Technol. 2016;34:235–44.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dong J, Kudo H. Accelerated algorithm for compressed sensing using nonlinear sparsifying transform in CT image reconstruction. Med Imaging Technol. 2017;35:63–73.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yu W, Wang C, Huang M. Edge-preserving reconstruction from sparse projections of limited-angle computed tomography using ℓ0-regularized gradient prior. Rev Sci Instrum. 2017;88:043703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, #15K11065, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, 2015–2017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoshihiko Hayakawa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Bing-Yu Sun and Yoshihiko Hayakawa declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights statement

This study was approved by our institutional Review Board (IRB), which gave endorsement to human rights statements and informed consent in the study (IRB Approval No. 1002, Kitami Institute of Technology).

Informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients to be included in the study. Additional informed consent was obtained from all patients for whom identifying information is included in this article.

Animal rights statements

This article does not contain any studies with animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, BY., Hayakawa, Y. Impact of statistical reconstruction and compressed sensing algorithms on projection data elimination during X-ray CT image reconstruction. Oral Radiol 34, 237–244 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-017-0308-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-017-0308-6

Keywords

  • Computed tomography 
  • X-ray
  • Image reconstruction
  • Statistical reconstruction
  • Incomplete projection data
  • Compressed sensing