Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Mar;46(3):303-15.
doi: 10.1007/s00247-015-3486-6. Epub 2015 Nov 6.

Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction: comparative image quality and radiation dose with a pediatric computed tomography phantom

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction: comparative image quality and radiation dose with a pediatric computed tomography phantom

Young Jin Ryu et al. Pediatr Radiol. 2016 Mar.

Abstract

Background: CT of pediatric phantoms can provide useful guidance to the optimization of knowledge-based iterative reconstruction CT.

Objective: To compare radiation dose and image quality of CT images obtained at different radiation doses reconstructed with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction, hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back-projection.

Materials and methods: We scanned a 5-year anthropomorphic phantom at seven levels of radiation. We then reconstructed CT data with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction (iterative model reconstruction [IMR] levels 1, 2 and 3; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA), hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose(4), levels 3 and 7; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA) and filtered back-projection. The noise, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. We evaluated low-contrast resolutions and detectability by low-contrast targets and subjective and objective spatial resolutions by the line pairs and wire.

Results: With radiation at 100 peak kVp and 100 mAs (3.64 mSv), the relative doses ranged from 5% (0.19 mSv) to 150% (5.46 mSv). Lower noise and higher signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and objective spatial resolution were generally achieved in ascending order of filtered back-projection, iDose(4) levels 3 and 7, and IMR levels 1, 2 and 3, at all radiation dose levels. Compared with filtered back-projection at 100% dose, similar noise levels were obtained on IMR level 2 images at 24% dose and iDose(4) level 3 images at 50% dose, respectively. Regarding low-contrast resolution, low-contrast detectability and objective spatial resolution, IMR level 2 images at 24% dose showed comparable image quality with filtered back-projection at 100% dose. Subjective spatial resolution was not greatly affected by reconstruction algorithm.

Conclusion: Reduced-dose IMR obtained at 0.92 mSv (24%) showed similar image quality to routine-dose filtered back-projection obtained at 3.64 mSv (100%), and half-dose iDose(4) obtained at 1.81 mSv.

Keywords: Children; Computed tomography; Infants; Iterative model reconstruction; Iterative reconstruction; Knowledge-based iterative reconstruction; Pediatric; Radiation.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Radiology. 2010 Nov;257(2):373-83 - PubMed
    1. Clin Radiol. 2015 Apr;70(4):366-72 - PubMed
    1. BMJ. 2013 May 21;346:f2360 - PubMed
    1. Invest Radiol. 2013 Mar;48(3):167-74 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84 - PubMed