Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm for CT: Can Radiation Dose Be Decreased While Low-Contrast Detectability Is Preserved?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the low-contrast detectability and image quality of computed tomography (CT) at different radiation dose levels reconstructed with iterative reconstruction (IR) and filtered back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A custom liver phantom with 12 simulated hypoattenuating tumors (diameters of 5, 10, 15, and 20 mm; tumor-to-liver contrast values of -10, -20, and -40 HU) was designed. The phantom was scanned with a standard abdominal CT protocol with a volume CT dose index of 21.6 mGy (equivalent 100% dose) and four low-dose protocols (20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of the standard protocol dose). CT data sets were reconstructed with IR and FBP. Image noise was measured, and the tumors' contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated. Tumor detection was independently assessed by three radiologists who were blinded to the CT technique used. A total of 840 simulated tumors were presented to the radiologists. Statistical analyses included analysis of variance. RESULTS: IR yielded an image noise reduction of 43.9%-63.9% and a CNR increase of 74.1%-180% compared with FBP at the same dose level (P < .001). The overall sensitivity for tumor detection was 64.7%-85.3% for IR and 66.3%-85.7% for FBP at the 20%-100% doses, respectively. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity for tumor detection between IR and FBP at the same dose level (P = .99). The sensitivity of the protocol at the 20% dose with FBP and IR was significantly lower than that of the protocol at the 100% dose with FBP and IR (P = .019). CONCLUSION: As the radiation dose at CT decreases, the IR algorithm does not preserve the low-contrast detectability. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122349/-/DC1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".