2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose 4 ™

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It seems that objective image quality does not exactly correlate with subjective rating, which could also be dependent on the reader’s experience with IR [27]. In a recent study on ultralow-dose chest CT, IMR reduced objective image noise compared to FBP and iDose, but the prominent blotchy images and poor demarcation of fine structures with IMR compromised its diagnostic confidence [28]. These previous results are in good agreement with our results.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…It seems that objective image quality does not exactly correlate with subjective rating, which could also be dependent on the reader’s experience with IR [27]. In a recent study on ultralow-dose chest CT, IMR reduced objective image noise compared to FBP and iDose, but the prominent blotchy images and poor demarcation of fine structures with IMR compromised its diagnostic confidence [28]. These previous results are in good agreement with our results.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…DLCT spectral data had to be reconstructed using iDose4, as provided by the vendor. Other studies have shown that IMR may be more effective in noise reduction than iDose4 19 20 21 . Thus, this discrepancy will tend to result in an underestimation of the superiority of DLCT concerning the SNR.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The most essential difference between iDose and IMR is that IMR decreases both quantum noise and non-random noise intrinsic to the geometry and optics of the imaging system [33,34]. According to previous studies, IMR can provide more dramatic dose reduction, but obtains more blotchy images and poor demarcation of anatomic structures which deteriorates its diagnostic confidence [34,35]. Therefore, several previous studies have recommended the use of an intermediate level of iDose (3)(4) to preserve the image quality of…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%