AI Article Synopsis

  • Radiologists usually prefer thick-section CT images for clinical interpretation due to lower noise but may use thin-section images for specific issues; deep learning reconstruction (DLR) can produce low-noise thin-section images.
  • This study aimed to compare image quality of thin-section DLR images with thin- and thick-section hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) images using a sample of 50 patients who underwent abdominal CT scans.
  • Results showed that DLR images received significantly better subjective quality ratings from radiologists for noise and overall quality compared to both HIR images, with DLR exhibiting notably lower noise levels.

Article Abstract

Because thick-section images (typically 3-5 mm) have low image noise, radiologists typically use them to perform clinical interpretation, although they may additionally refer to thin-section images (typically 0.5-0.625 mm) for problem solving. Deep learning reconstruction (DLR) can yield thin-section images with low noise. The purpose of this study is to compare abdominopelvic CT image quality between thin-section DLR images and thin- and thick-section hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) images. This retrospective study included 50 patients (31 men and 19 women; median age, 64 years) who underwent abdominopelvic CT between June 15, 2020, and July 29, 2020. Images were reconstructed at 0.5-mm section using DLR and at 0.5-mm and 3.0-mm sections using HIR. Five radiologists independently performed pairwise comparisons (0.5-mm DLR and either 0.5-mm or 3.0-mm HIR) and recorded the preferred image for subjective image quality measures (scale, -2 to 2). The pooled scores of readers were compared with a score of 0 (denoting no preference). Image noise was quantified using the SD of ROIs on regions of homogeneous liver. For comparison of 0.5-mm DLR images and 0.5-mm HIR images, the median pooled score was 2 (indicating a definite preference for DLR) for noise and overall image quality and 1 (denoting a slight preference for DLR) for sharpness and natural appearance. For comparison of 0.5-mm DLR and 3.0-mm HIR, the median pooled score was 1 for the four previously mentioned measures. These assessments were all significantly different ( < .001) from 0. For artifacts, the median pooled score for both comparisons was 0, which was not significant for comparison with 3.0-mm HIR ( = .03) but was significant for comparison with 0.5-mm HIR ( < .001) due to imbalance in scores of 1 ( = 28) and -1 (slight preference for HIR, = 1). Noise for 0.5-mm DLR was lower by mean differences of 12.8 HU compared with 0.5-mm HIR and 4.4 HU compared with 3.0-mm HIR (both < .001). Thin-section DLR improves subjective image quality and reduces image noise compared with currently used thin- and thick-section HIR, without causing additional artifacts. Although further diagnostic performance studies are warranted, the findings suggest the possibility of replacing current use of both thin- and thick-section HIR with the use of thin-section DLR only during clinical interpretations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.22.28319DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

image quality
20
05-mm dlr
20
30-mm hir
16
image noise
12
thin-section dlr
12
thin- thick-section
12
hir
12
comparison 05-mm
12
05-mm hir
12
median pooled
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!