71 research outputs found

    Generative adversarial network with radiomic feature reproducibility analysis for computed tomography denoising

    Get PDF
    Background: Most computed tomography (CT) denoising algorithms have been evaluated using image quality analysis (IQA) methods developed for natural image, which do not adequately capture the texture details in medical imaging. Radiomics is an emerging image analysis technique that extracts texture information to provide a more objective basis for medical imaging diagnostics, overcoming the subjective nature of traditional methods. By utilizing the difficulty of reproducing radiomics features under different imaging protocols, we can more accurately evaluate the performance of CT denoising algorithms. Method: We introduced radiomic feature reproducibility analysis as an evaluation metric for a denoising algorithm. Also, we proposed a low-dose CT denoising method based on a generative adversarial network (GAN), which outperformed well-known CT denoising methods. Results: Although the proposed model produced excellent results visually, the traditional image assessment metrics such as peak signal-to-noise ratio and structural similarity failed to show distinctive performance differences between the proposed method and the conventional ones. However, radiomic feature reproducibility analysis provided a distinctive assessment of the CT denoising performance. Furthermore, radiomic feature reproducibility analysis allowed fine-tuning of the hyper-parameters of the GAN. Conclusion: We demonstrated that the well-tuned GAN architecture outperforms the well-known CT denoising methods. Our study is the first to introduce radiomics reproducibility analysis as an evaluation metric for CT denoising. We look forward that the study may bridge the gap between traditional objective and subjective evaluations in the clinical medical imaging field. ยฉ 2023 The Author(s)ope

    ๋”ฅ๋Ÿฌ๋‹์„ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์ €์„ ๋Ÿ‰ ์ „์‚ฐํ™” ๋‹จ์ธต์ดฌ์˜์˜ ์˜์ƒ ํ™”์งˆ ํ–ฅ์ƒ

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ (๋ฐ•์‚ฌ)-- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ์˜๊ณผ๋Œ€ํ•™ ์ž„์ƒ์˜๊ณผํ•™๊ณผ, 2019. 2. ๊น€์˜ํ›ˆ.์„œ๋ก : ์ €์„ ๋Ÿ‰ ์ „์‚ฐํ™” ๋‹จ์ธต์ดฌ์˜์—์„œ FBP (filtered back projection) ๋ฐ ADMIRE (advanced modeled iterative reconstruction)์™€ ๋น„๊ตํ•˜์—ฌ ๋”ฅ๋Ÿฌ๋‹ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์•Œ๊ณ ๋ฆฌ์ฆ˜ (deep learning algorithmDLA)์„ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์˜€์„ ๋•Œ์˜ ์˜์ƒ ํ™”์งˆ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์ด๋‹ค. ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•: ์ด ํ›„ํ–ฅ์  ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๊ธฐ๊ด€ ๊ฒ€ํ† ์œ„์›ํšŒ์˜ ์Šน์ธ์„ ๋ฐ›์•˜๋‹ค. FBP๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์ •์ƒ ์„ ๋Ÿ‰ (routine dose, RD) ๋ณต๋ถ€ CT๋ฅผ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•œ ์ด 100 ๋ช…์˜ ํ™˜์ž๋ฅผ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋”ฅ๋Ÿฌ๋‹ ์•Œ๊ณ ๋ฆฌ์ฆ˜์˜ ํ›ˆ๋ จ ์„ธํŠธ๋ฅผ ๋งŒ๋“ค์—ˆ๋‹ค. RD CT ์˜์ƒ์œผ๋กœ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ 13 %, 25 %, 50 %์˜ ์„ ๋Ÿ‰ ์ˆ˜์ค€์˜ ์ €์„ ๋Ÿ‰ CT ์˜์ƒ์„ ์‹œ๋ฎฌ๋ ˆ์ด์…˜ํ•˜๊ณ  FBP๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์žฌ๊ตฌ์„ฑํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์šฐ๋ฆฌ๋Š” ์‹œ๋ฎฌ๋ ˆ์ด์…˜ ๋œ ์ €์„ ๋Ÿ‰ CT ์ด๋ฏธ์ง€๋ฅผ ์ž…๋ ฅ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋กœ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜๊ณ  ์ •์ƒ์„ ๋Ÿ‰ CT ์ด๋ฏธ์ง€๋ฅผ ์ •๋‹ต์œผ๋กœ ํ•˜์—ฌ ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ์กฐ๊ฑด์—์„œ DLA๋ฅผ ํ›ˆ๋ จ์‹œ์ผฐ๋‹ค. DLA์˜ ์œ ํšจ์„ฑ์„ ํ™•์ธํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ํ‰๊ท ํ™” ์ œ๊ณฑ ์˜ค๋ฅ˜ (Mean squared error, MSE)๋ฅผ ์˜์ธํ™” ํŒฌํ…€์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์ธก์ •ํ–ˆ๋‹ค. ํ›ˆ๋ จ๊ณผ ๊ฒ€์ฆ์„ ๊ฑฐ์นœ DLA๋ฅผ ์‹œํ—˜ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ํŒฌํ…€์„ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์™€, 18๋ช…์˜ ์ €์„ ๋Ÿ‰ ๋ณต๋ถ€ CT๋ฅผ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•œ ํ™˜์ž๋ฅผ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋ฅผ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ฐ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ FBP, ADMIRE ๋ฐ DLA๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ํŒฌํ…€ ๋ฐ ํ™˜์ž์˜ ์ €์„ ๋Ÿ‰ CT ์˜์ƒ์„ ์žฌ๊ตฌ์„ฑํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ฐ๊ฐ์˜ ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์œผ๋กœ ์žฌ๊ตฌ์„ฑ๋œ ์˜์ƒ์—์„œ ์˜์ƒ ํ’ˆ์งˆ์„ ํ…Œ์ŠคํŠธํ•˜๊ณ  ๋น„๊ตํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด์„œ, ACR ํŒฌํ…€์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์žก์Œ ์ „๋ ฅ ์ŠคํŽ™ํŠธ๋Ÿผ (noise power spectrum, NPS)๊ณผ ๋ณ€์กฐ ์ „๋‹ฌ ํ•จ์ˆ˜ (modulation transfer function, MTF)๋ฅผ ์ธก์ •ํ•˜๊ณ  ํ™˜์ž ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ํ‰๊ท  ์˜์ƒ ์žก์Œ(mean image noise)์„ ์ธก์ •ํ–ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ: LD-DLA๋Š” ํŒฌํ…€ ๋ฐ ํ™˜์ž ์—ฐ๊ตฌ ๋ชจ๋‘์—์„œ LD-FBP ๋ฐ LD-ADMIRE๋ณด๋‹ค ๋‚ฎ์€ ์žก์Œ ์ˆ˜์ค€์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ํŒฌํ…€ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ, LD-DLA์˜ NPS ๊ณก์„ ์˜ ํ”ผํฌ ๊ฐ’๊ณผ AUC๋Š” LD-FBP ๋˜๋Š” LD-ADMIRE๋ณด๋‹ค ๋‚ฎ์•˜๋‹ค. ํ™˜์ž ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ LD-DLA ์ด๋ฏธ์ง€๋Š” LD-ADMIRE ์ด๋ฏธ์ง€๋ณด๋‹ค ์œ ์˜ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ๋‚ฎ์€ ํ‰๊ท  ์ด๋ฏธ์ง€ ๋…ธ์ด์ฆˆ๋ฅผ ๋ณด์˜€๊ณ  (๋ชจ๋‘ p <0.001), ์ถ”๊ฐ€ ์ธ๊ณต๋ฌผ๋„ ๋ณด์ด์ง€ ์•Š์•˜๋‹ค. ๊ฒฐ๋ก : LD-DLA ์˜์ƒ์€ LD-FBP ๋ฐ LD-ADMIRE ์˜์ƒ๋ณด๋‹ค ์žก์Œ์ด ์ ์Œ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ฃผ์—ˆ์ง€๋งŒ ๊ณต๊ฐ„ ๋ถ„ํ•ด๋Šฅ์€ ๊ฐœ์„ ์‹œํ‚ค์ง€ ๋ชปํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ๋” ์ ์€ ๋ฐฉ์‚ฌ์„ ๋Ÿ‰์œผ๋กœ ์ดฌ์˜ํ•œ ์ด๋ฏธ์ง€๋กœ ํ›ˆ๋ จํ•œ DLA์ผ์ˆ˜๋ก ์žก์Œ์ด ์ ๊ฒŒ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค.Introduction: To assess the image quality of low-dose (LD) computed tomography (CT) using a deep learning based denoising algorithm (DLA) compared with filtered back projection (FBP) and advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE). Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients who had undergone routine dose (RD) abdominal CT reconstructed with FBP were included to build the DLA training set. CT images at dose levels corresponding to 13%, 25%, and 50% of RD were simulated from RD CT images and reconstructed using FBP. We trained three DLAs using the simulated LD CT images with different dose levels as input data and the RD CT images as the ground truth (DLA-1, 2, 3 for 13%, 25%, and 50% dose levels, respectively). The American College of Radiology (ACR) CT phantom was used together with 18 patients who underwent abdominal LD CT to build a testing set. LD CT images of phantom and patients were reconstructed using FBP, ADMIRE, and processed using DLAs (LD-FBP, LD-ADMIRE, LD-DLA images). To compare the quality of reconstructed and processed images, we measured noise power spectrum (NPS) and modulation transfer function (MTF) for various contrast objects in phantom images, and mean image noises in patient data. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-tests and repeated measure analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons. In addition, we evaluated the presence of additional artifacts in LD-DLA images. Results: LD-DLAs achieved lower noise levels than LD-FBP and LD-ADMIRE in both phantom and patient studies (all p < 0.001), and LD-DLAs trained with lower radiation doses showed less image noise. There were no additional image artifacts in LD-DLA images. However, the MTFs of the LD-DLAs were significantly lower than those of LD-ADMIRE and LD-FBP (all p < 0.001) and decreased with decreasing training image dose, although the differences between the LD-DLAs and LD-FBP were minimal. Conclusions: DLAs achieved less noise than FBP and ADMIRE in LD CT images, but did not maintain spatial resolution. Lower radiation doses in training images led to less noise.Introduction. 1 Material and methods. 5 Results 13 Discussion. 17 Acknowledgement 24 Reference 25 Abstract in Korean 41Docto

    Enhanced CNN for image denoising

    Full text link
    Owing to flexible architectures of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs), CNNs are successfully used for image denoising. However, they suffer from the following drawbacks: (i) deep network architecture is very difficult to train. (ii) Deeper networks face the challenge of performance saturation. In this study, the authors propose a novel method called enhanced convolutional neural denoising network (ECNDNet). Specifically, they use residual learning and batch normalisation techniques to address the problem of training difficulties and accelerate the convergence of the network. In addition, dilated convolutions are used in the proposed network to enlarge the context information and reduce the computational cost. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the ECNDNet outperforms the state-of-the-art methods for image denoising.Comment: CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology[J], 201
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore