↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction: comparative image quality and radiation dose with a pediatric computed tomography phantom
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00247-015-3486-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Young Jin Ryu, Young Hun Choi, Jung-Eun Cheon, Seongmin Ha, Woo Sun Kim, In-One Kim

Abstract

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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Other 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 57%
Unspecified 3 14%
Engineering 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Other 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#10,837,676
of 12,226,394 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#895
of 1,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,272
of 289,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#25
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,226,394 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.