The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient Study.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnostics Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.3390/diagnostics15020180
Doris Šegota Ritoša, Doris Dodig, Slavica Kovačić, Nina Bartolović, Ivan Brumini, Petra Valković Zujić, Slaven Jurković, Damir Miletić
{"title":"The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient Study.","authors":"Doris Šegota Ritoša, Doris Dodig, Slavica Kovačić, Nina Bartolović, Ivan Brumini, Petra Valković Zujić, Slaven Jurković, Damir Miletić","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics15020180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: This study aims to evaluate the impact of various weighting factors (WFs) on the quality of weighted average (WA) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) non-contrast brain images and to determine the optimal WF value. Because they simulate standard CT images, 0.4-WA reconstructions are routinely used. <b>Methods</b>: In the initial phase of the research, quantitative and qualitative analyses of WA DECT images of an anthropomorphic head phantom, utilizing WFs ranging from 0 to 1 in 0.1 increments, were conducted. Based on the phantom study findings, WFs of 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 were chosen for patient analyses, which were identically carried out on 85 patients who underwent non-contrast head DECT. Three radiologists performed subjective phantom and patient analyses. <b>Results</b>: Quantitative phantom image analysis revealed the best gray-to-white matter contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at the highest WFs and minimal noise artifacts at the lowest WF values. However, the WA reconstructions were deemed non-diagnostic by all three readers. Two readers found 0.6-WA patient reconstructions significantly superior to 0.4-WA images (<i>p</i> < 0.001), while reader 1 found them to be equally good (<i>p</i> = 0.871). All readers agreed that 0.8-WA images exhibited the lowest image quality. <b>Conclusions</b>: In conclusion, 0.6-WA reconstructions demonstrated superior image quality over 0.4-WA and are recommended for routine non-contrast brain DECT.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11763815/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15020180","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aims to evaluate the impact of various weighting factors (WFs) on the quality of weighted average (WA) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) non-contrast brain images and to determine the optimal WF value. Because they simulate standard CT images, 0.4-WA reconstructions are routinely used. Methods: In the initial phase of the research, quantitative and qualitative analyses of WA DECT images of an anthropomorphic head phantom, utilizing WFs ranging from 0 to 1 in 0.1 increments, were conducted. Based on the phantom study findings, WFs of 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 were chosen for patient analyses, which were identically carried out on 85 patients who underwent non-contrast head DECT. Three radiologists performed subjective phantom and patient analyses. Results: Quantitative phantom image analysis revealed the best gray-to-white matter contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at the highest WFs and minimal noise artifacts at the lowest WF values. However, the WA reconstructions were deemed non-diagnostic by all three readers. Two readers found 0.6-WA patient reconstructions significantly superior to 0.4-WA images (p < 0.001), while reader 1 found them to be equally good (p = 0.871). All readers agreed that 0.8-WA images exhibited the lowest image quality. Conclusions: In conclusion, 0.6-WA reconstructions demonstrated superior image quality over 0.4-WA and are recommended for routine non-contrast brain DECT.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加权因子对非对比头部检查中双能计算机断层成像质量的影响:幻影和患者研究。
背景:本研究旨在评估各种加权因子(WF)对加权平均(WA)双能计算机断层扫描(DECT)非对比脑图像质量的影响,并确定最佳WF值。因为它们模拟标准的CT图像,所以通常使用0.4-WA重建。方法:在研究的初始阶段,对拟人化头部幻影的WA DECT图像进行定量和定性分析,WFs范围为0 ~ 1,增量为0.1。基于幻像研究结果,WFs分别为0.4、0.6和0.8用于患者分析,对85例接受非对比头部DECT的患者进行了相同的分析。三名放射科医生进行了主观幻像和患者分析。结果:定量幻影图像分析显示,在最高WF值时,脑灰质与白质的噪比(CNR)最佳,在最低WF值时,噪声伪影最小。然而,三位读者都认为脑电图重建不具有诊断意义。两位读者认为0.6-WA的患者重建图像明显优于0.4-WA图像(p < 0.001),而读者1认为它们同样好(p = 0.871)。所有读者都认为0.8-WA的图像质量最低。结论:综上所述,0.6-WA重建图像质量优于0.4-WA,推荐用于常规非对比脑DECT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
期刊最新文献
Beat-to-Beat QT Variability: A Population Study of the QT Variability Index Composition. Non-Exudative Macular Neovascularization in Various Acquired Macular Degenerations with Double- and Triple-Layer Sign on OCT. Impact of Maneuverability Constraints on Intraoral Scanner Performance. Infarction or Metabolic Breakdown? Longitudinally Extensive Diffusion-Restricted Lesions from the Medulla Oblongata to the Lumbar Spinal Cord. Advanced Deep Learning Models for Classifying Dental Diseases from Panoramic Radiographs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1