The current invention is generally related to image processing method and system for processing projection data using a noise weighted filtered backprojection technique.
The filtered backprojection (FBP) algorithm is generally simple and efficient and is used to reconstruct images in nuclear medicine, x-ray CT and MRI. The FBP algorithm has been the workhorse in X-ray CT and nuclear medicine image reconstruction thanks to its computational efficiency. Although FBP is efficient, it undesirably produces noisy images particularly from data acquired at a low dose of X-ray.
As a general trend, the FBP algorithm is gradually being replaced by iterative algorithms despite its use for several decades. The FBP algorithm undesirably generates images with noise. Furthermore, prior art indicates that the FBP algorithm is not capable of incorporating a noise model for reducing the noise level. In this regard, iterative algorithms optionally incorporate a projection noise model and produce less noisy images than the FBP algorithm. Yet, iterative algorithms generally require intense computation.
Despite the computational requirements, iterative algorithms advantageously produce noise-resolution balanced images using maximum a posteriori (MAP). In contrast, prior art indicates that the FBP algorithm is not capable of taking advantage of MAP or prior image information.
In view of the above discussed prior art issues, a practical solution is still desired for a method and a system in reconstructing an image using the FBP algorithm to substantially reduce noise in the image without losing computational efficiency.
Referring now to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate corresponding structures throughout the views, and referring in particular to
The multi-slice X-ray CT apparatus further includes a high voltage generator 109 that applies a tube voltage to the X-ray tube 101 so that the X-ray tube 101 generates X ray. In one embodiment, the high voltage generator 109 is mounted on the frame 102. The X rays are emitted towards the subject S, whose cross sectional area is represented by a circle. The X-ray detector 103 is located at an opposite side from the X-ray tube 101 across the subject S for detecting the emitted X rays that have transmitted through the subject S.
Still referring to
The above described data is sent to a preprocessing device 106, which is housed in a console outside the gantry 100 through a non-contact data transmitter 105. The preprocessing device 106 performs certain corrections such as sensitivity correction on the raw data. A storage device 112 then stores the resultant data that is also called projection data at a stage immediately before reconstruction processing. The storage device 112 is connected to a system controller 110 through a data/control bus, together with a reconstruction device 114, input device 115, display device 116, current regulator 117 and the scan plan support apparatus 200. The scan plan support apparatus 200 includes a function for supporting an imaging technician to develop a scan plan.
According to one aspect of the current invention, one embodiment of the reconstruction device 114 reconstructs an image from the projection data that is stored in the storage device 112 based upon a filtered backprojection (FBP) technique with noise weighting. In another embodiment of the reconstruction device 114 reconstructs an image from the projection data based upon a filtered backprojection (FBP) technique with noise weighting and prior in such as a reference image. Either one of the above two embodiments of the reconstruction device 114 reconstructs an image from the projection data based upon a filtered backprojection (FBP) technique with an additional feature of emulating a specific iteration result at a predetermined number of iterations according to a predetermined iterative reconstruction algorithm.
The reconstruction device 114 is implemented in a combination of software and hardware and is not limited to a particular implementation. In the following description of the reconstruction device 114, the term, “unit” is inclusive of hardware and software. Furthermore, the concept of the reconstruction device 114 is applicable to other modalities including nuclear medicine and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Now referring to
Now referring to
The step S120 shapes the filter based upon predetermined parameters. As described above, one exemplary parameter is noise variance in the projection data, but the parameters according to the current invention are not limited to the noise parameter. For example, the reconstruction filter is shaped based upon a system matrix. In further detail, the system matrix specifies non-uniform sampling of the projection data. Although the conventional FBP algorithm assumes that the object is uniformly sampled, one can use variable sampling strategies. For example, signal is sampled with a first angular interval in a certain angular range containing an important structure. In contrast, signal is sampled with a second angular interval that is larger than the first angular interval in another angular range outside the region of interest.
In another exemplary process of reconstructing an image according to the current invention, the step S100 is not necessarily performed and completed before the step S120 in determining the weight value for each of the predetermined data unit of projection data. In other words, the exemplary process of reconstructing an image optionally determines the weight value as the reconstruction filter is shaped. This on-the-fly weight value approach is useful for certain combined features of the process of reconstructing an image according to the current invention.
Still referring to
Now referring to
The projection noise variance can be modeled using a view-based weighting scheme in embodiment according to the current invention. In general, a typical approach in image reconstruction while compensating for the noise influence is to minimize a noise variance weighted objective function:
∥P−AX|W2 (1)
where A is the projection matrix, X is the image array written as a column vector, P is the projection array written as a column vector, and W is the noise weighting matrix which defines a weighted norm. An iterative Landweber algorithm is used to minimize this objective function as:
X(k+1)=X(k)+αATW(P−AX(k)) (2)
where AT is the backprojection matrix, X(k) is the estimated image at the kth iteration, and α>0 is the step size. This recursive relation is re-written as a non-recursive expression as
Assuming that (ATWA)−1=A−1W−1(AT)−1 exists, Equation (3) is simplified as:
X(k)=[I−(I−αATWA)k]A−1P. (4)
The matrix expression (4) is equivalent to a noise weighted FBP algorithm and its filter function in the frequency domain is by
where ω is the frequency variable, w(view) is a weight value or a noise related weighting factor at a particular view angle, α is a parameter emulating the step-size in an iterative algorithm, and k is a parameter emulating the iteration number in an iterative algorithm. This view-wise weighted FBP (denoted as vFBP) algorithm has a shift-invariant point response function (PRF).
In the above embodiment, the reconstruction filter is shaped to emulate a specific iteration result at a predetermined number of iterations as noted in k according to a predetermined iterative reconstruction algorithm. The above feature for emulating iteration in the reconstruction filter is not necessarily included in another embodiment for reconstructing an image from the projection data using the view-wise weighted FBP algorithm according to the current invention.
Now referring to
As the requirement for a shift-invariant PRF is removed, a ray-by-ray weighting scheme is developed, and its frequency domain windowed ramp filter is obtained by modifying Equation (5) as follows:
where a weight value or a weighting factor w(ray) is determined as a function of the noise variance of the associated projection ray. k is a parameter that specifies a predetermined number of iterations for emulating a specific iteration result at according to a predetermined iterative reconstruction algorithm. Let the inverse Fourier transform of H (ω, ray) be h(t,ray); then h(t,ray) is the spatial-domain kernel of the filter. Let p(r, θ) be the projection at view θ and ray r, and q(r, θ) be the filtered projection. Then q(r, θ) is defined by the following integral:
which is not a convolution, because the kernel h(t,r) depends on r. If the filtering procedure is implemented in the spatial domain as Equation (7), the calculation cost is the same as convolution. The backprojection step in this new rFBP algorithm is the same as that in the conventional FBP algorithm. Therefore, this new rFBP algorithm is computationally efficient. On the other hand, the image domain filtering is alternatively implemented in the 2D Fourier domain with a transfer function as will be later explained in a specific implementation for the ray-by-ray noise weighted FBP-MAP (rFBP-MAP) algorithm.
A popular approach to assign the weighting factor is to let w(ray) be the reciprocal of the noise variance of the ray measurement. This approach is justified by using the likelihood function (i.e., the joint probability density function) as the objective function for an optimization problem. If we use the philosophy that we should trust the less noisy measurements more than noisier measurements, we have more freedom to assign the weighting factors as long as a larger w(ray) is assigned to a less noisy measurement and a smaller w(ray) is assigned to a noisier measurement.
The easiest and most efficient way to implement the proposed rFBP algorithm is to use Equation (7) to filter the projections in the spatial domain. Currently, we do not have an analytical expression for the integration kernel h(t,r). An alternative way to calculate q(r, θ) for each view θ is to implement Equation (7) in the frequency domain as follows:
Step 1: Find the 1D Fourier transform of p(r, θ) with respect to r, obtaining P(ω,θ)
Step 2.a: For each ray “ray,” assign a weighting factor w(ray) and form a frequency domain transfer function as expressed in Equation (6). In implementation, ω is the frequency index and takes the integer.
Step 2.b: Find the product: Qray(ω,θ)=P(ω,θ)H(ω, ray).
Step 2.c: Find the 1D inverse Fourier transform of Qray (ω, θ) with respect to ω, obtaining q(ray, θ).
In the above exemplary implementation, Step 1 processes all r's in a row of each view while Steps 2.a through 2.c process only one ray at a time. In the view-by-view weighted FBP (vFBP) algorithm, a single weight value or weighting factor w(view) is assigned to all projection rays in a view. In contrast, the ray-by-ray weighted FBP (rFBP) algorithm, a distinct weight value or weighting factor w(ray) is assigned to each of the projection rays in a view. As a result, the noise-weighting scheme is more accurate in the ray-by-ray weighted FBP (rFBP) algorithm than in the view-by-view weighted FBP (vFBP) algorithm.
As described above with respect to the view-by-view weighted FBP (vFBP) algorithm and the ray-by-ray weighted FBP (rFBP) algorithm, embodiments shape at least one reconstruction filter based upon parameters including the weight value before generating an image according to the current invention. Furthermore, in the above embodiments, the reconstruction filter is shaped to emulate a specific iteration result at a predetermined number of iterations as noted in k according to a predetermined iterative reconstruction algorithm. The above feature for emulating iteration in the reconstruction filter is not necessarily included in another embodiment for reconstructing an image from the projection data using the view-wise or ray-wise weighted FBP algorithms according to the current invention.
Subsequently, embodiments perform certain steps for generating an image based upon the reconstruction filter that has been shaped or customized according to the current invention. In general, noise reduction in image reconstruction is based on the concept that image reconstruction especially in the backprojection is a summation procedure, and proper weighting of the projection data substantially reduces the variance of the backprojection.
Now referring to
Now referring to
Now referring to
In one embodiment, the backprojection BP normalizes the above described varying angular sampling using a weighting function during the image generation. For example, signal is sampled with a first angular interval in a certain angular range containing an important structure. In contrast, signal is sampled with a second angular interval that is larger than the first angular interval in another angular range outside the region of interest. The backprojection BP is an integral over the sampling angle, and the angular sampling density compensation is achieved by using a normalization factor in the backprojection integral, which is essentially a Jacobian factor. Mathematically, a backprojection image is expressed as:
where p is raw projection at angle θ if the algorithm requires the raw projections be backprojected first. Alternatively, p is optionally the filtered projection at angle θ if an FBP algorithm is used, and t indicates the detector bin location. A simple discrete implementation of Equation (8) is given as
where n is the detector location index, m is the projection angle index, M is the total number of views at which projections are acquired, and “INT” is used to indicate the nearest neighbor interpolation. In fact, a typical implementation does not use an “INT” function, but uses linear interpolation between two neighboring detector bins.
For the purposes of illustration, using the simple implementation as expressed in Equation (9), for the not uniform angular sampling, it obeys a density function d(0), which is the number of views per unit angle. For example, if the sampling interval is 1° for 0<θ<π/4 and 3° for π/4<θ<π, then the density function is
and the backprojection (9) can be modified as
Here, the sampling density function is a function of the angle index in. instead of the actual angle θ.
Now referring to
Still referring to
In one exemplary embodiment as illustrated in
F=∥P−AX∥W2+βg(X) (12)
where in the context of tomography, A in (1) is the projection matrix, X is the image array written as a column vector, P is the projection array written as a column vector, W is a diagonal matrix consisting of the weighting factors for each projection, and b is a relative weighting factor that adjusts the importance of the Bayesian term g(X) relative to the fidelity team ∥P−AX∥W2.
In smoothing the image, the penalty g(X) is a quadratic function of a jump, and the jump is calculated as the difference between the value of the pixel of interest and the average value of its neighbors. A large jump corresponds to a large penalty, and this penalty function leads to a smooth image.
To suppress the image noise without smoothing out the edges too much, the penalty function g(X) should have different characteristics for edges and for non-edge regions. A common penalty function with such ability is the Huber function, which has a threshold value. If the jump is smaller than the threshold and the jump is classified as noise, the Huber function is quadratic and enforces smoothing. If the jump is larger than the threshold and the jump is classified as an edge, the Huber function is linear and lighter smoothing is suggested.
Another popular prior that encourages a piece-wise constant image is the TV (total-variation) measure. For a discrete one-dimensional function, g(x), the gradient of the TV measure of g(x) takes only three values: a positive value if g(x) is greater than its left and right neighbors; a negative value if g(x) is smaller than its left and right neighbors; 0 if g(x) is between its left and right neighbors. In a gradient-type optimization algorithm, a positive gradient value pushes the value of g(x) downwards; a negative gradient value pushes the value of g(x) upwards; a gradient value of 0 means that no changes are made. Therefore, the TV prior encourages a monotonic function, suppresses oscillations, and preserves the sharp edges.
As illustrated in
Now referring to
X=B.*X0+(1−B).*Xβ (13)
where .* is the point-wise multiplication as defined in MATLAB®.
Now referring to
F=∥P−AX∥W2+β1XTR1X+β2(X−{circumflex over (X)})TR2(X−{circumflex over (X)}). (14)
An iterative intermediate solution is expressed by
An equivalent FBP-MAP algorithm has two Fourier domain filter functions
Still referring to
Now referring to
At least one reconstruction filter is customized or shaped based upon a combination of parameters including but not limited to an iteration number, a noise weight value, a system matrix and so on in a step S202. These parameters are optionally selected to ultimately provide a desired image. For example, a parameter k is selected to emulate a specific iteration result at a predetermined number of iterations according to a predetermined iterative reconstruction algorithm. In addition, a previously determined weight value W is also used in conjunction with the iteration parameter k to shape the reconstruction filter to be applied to the projection data in one embodiment according to the current invention. Other filter parameters include the step size in the iterative algorithm and the relative weighting of the Bayesian term so as to accommodate various applications.
After the reconstruction filter is customized in the step S202 to a desired setting according to a combination of the parameters, the projection data is filtered in a step S203 by applying the customized filter. The filtered data is then backprojected in a step S204 to render an image. The exemplary process determines whether or not it is desirable repeat the iterative emulation in a step S205. If the additional emulation is desired, the exemplary process proceeds to the step S202 fur additional iterative emulation. On the other hand, if the additional emulation is not desired, the exemplary process proceeds to terminate.
Still referring to
In mathematics, if the noisy measurements are inconsistent, the measurements are referred to as “not in the range of the projection operator.” On the other hand, if the measurements are consistent, they are mapped into a range of the projection operator. In fact, the mapping is guaranteed by the backprojector in an FBP algorithm because only data components in the range of the projector are backprojected into the image domain. In other words, the projection inconsistency has no contribution to the FBP reconstructed images. Without loss of generality, it can be assumed that the situation as illustrated by a strait line, where the measurements are consistent but still noisy and in the range of the projection operator even for an image with many pixels. Unlike an iterative algorithm, the FBP algorithm is able to provide a unique but noisy solution from a set of noisy projections.
Still referring to
One solution trajectory from k=0 is a straight line towards the true solution or the image I, and the straight line indicates that the emulated iterations are not weighted by noise variance. The points NNW1 and NNW2 on a straight line indicate intermediate results respectively after a first predetermined number of iterations and a second predetermined number of iterations. In this example, the second number of iterations is larger than the first number of iterations, and the intermediate result NNW2 is emulated after the second number of iterations. On the other hand, the intermediate results NW1, NW2 and NW3 are located on a curved line, and the curved line indicates that the emulated iterations are weighted by noise variance. The intermediate results NW1, NW2 and NW3 are respectively after a third predetermined number, a fourth predetermined number and a fifth predetermined number of iterations. In the example, the fifth number is larger than the third and fourth numbers of iterations, and the third number is the smallest. The intermediate result NW3 is emulated after the fifth number of iterations. The solution trajectory is determined by a set of weighting factors. One weighting factor is assigned to each measurement. A larger factor implies that the associated measurement is more trustworthy. A common approach is to assign the weighting factor that is proportional to the reciprocal of the noise variance of the measurement.
A less noisy pseudo solution in the neighborhood of the true noisy solution is accepted in practice. A sequence of pseudo solutions is parameterized by a predetermined set of parameters including a noise variance weight value and an iteration index k. In general, a pseudo solution with a smaller k corresponds to a smoother image while a pseudo solution with a larger k corresponds to a sharper image but noisier.
In the following, additional embodiments are described with respect to a specific combination of the above features according to the current invention. One embodiment utilizes a ray-by-ray noise weighted FBP with maximum a posteriori (MAP) algorithm, which is designated by rFBP-MAP. The derivation steps for the rFBP-MAP algorithm are very similar to those for the view-by-view weighted FBP-MAP algorithm. Some major derivation steps are briefly given below. An objective function is the same as Equation (12). If the Bayesian term g(X) is quadratic, the gradient of g(X) is in the form of RX for some matrix R, and the solution can be obtained by the Landweber algorithm:
X(k+1)=X(k)+α[ATW(P−AX(k))−βRX(k)] (18)
The recursive expression of Equation (18) has an equivalent non-recursive expression. When the initial condition is zero, the non-recursive expression is:
If (ATWA+βR)−1 exists, the summation in (19) has a closed-form as
X(k)=[I−(I−αATWA−αβR)k](ATWA+βR)−1ATWP (20)
If (ATWA)−1 exist, (ATWA+βR)−1=[I+β(ATWA)−1R]−1(ATWA)−1. If it is further assumed that sufficient sampling leads to the existence of Radon inversion A−1, then it leads to (ATWA)−1=A−1W−1 (AT)−1 and (ATWA)−1 ATW=A−1. Therefore, Equation (20) can be reduced to:
X(k)=[I−(I−αATWA−αβR)k][I+β(ATWA)−1R]−1A−1P (21)
If A−1 does not exist for a reason such as an insufficient number of views, one can verify that the FBP algorithm is a pseudo-inverse of the projection operator A and (ATWA)+ATW=A+, where “+” denotes the pseudo-inverse and A+ is ramp filtering followed by backprojection AT. Thus, Equation (21) still holds with the inverse “−1” by replacing the pseudo-inverse “+”. Hereafter, we will not distinguish the inverse and the pseudo-inverse. The notation “A−1P” will be used to represent the conventional FBP reconstruction.
In Equation (21), [I−(I−αATWA−αβR)k] represents the windowing effect at the kth iteration of the iterative algorithm and becomes the identity matrix as k tends to infinity, and [I+β(ATWA)−1R]−1 represents the effect of the Bayesian regularization. When β=0, the Bayesian modification is not effective. Expression (21) provides insights and understanding of how an iterative algorithm handles the noise-weighting and Bayesian regularization, and it can also lead to develop an FBP-type algorithm to perform the same tasks.
Lastly, a Fourier domain expression is derived from the matrix expression so that an FBP-type algorithm is obtained. The matrix A−1 is treated as 1D ramp filtering followed by backprojection or backprojection followed by 2D ramp-filtering. When the matrix expression (21) is viewed as a “backproject first, then filter” algorithm, the image domain filtering in Equation (21) is implemented in the 2D Fourier domain with a transfer function of
where vx and vy are the frequencies respectively with respect to x and y, and {right arrow over (v)}=(vx,vy) is the 2D frequency vector. When ∥{right arrow over (v)}∥=0, we define Hk,β,w2D(0,0)=0. As known, if the projection operator A is the line-integral (i.e., the Radon transform) in the 2D space and AT is the operator (i.e., the backprojection transform), the combined operator of projection-and-backprojection, ATA, is the 2D convolution of the original image with a 2D kernel 1/r, where r=√{square root over (x2+y2)} in the x-y Cartesian coordinates. The 2D Fourier transform of 1/r is 1/∥{right arrow over (v)}∥. In Equation (22), the Fourier domain equivalence of R is denoted by L2D.
By using the central slice theorem, image domain 2D filtering is converted into projection domain 1D filtering. The 2D image Fourier domain transfer function (22) is equivalent to the 1D projection Fourier domain transfer function:
where ω is the frequency with respect to the variable along the detector. When ω=0, we define Hk,β,w1D(0)=0. In Equation (23), L1D is the central slice of L2D of Equation (22). In this new rFBP-MAP algorithm, Hk,β,w1D(ω) is the modified ramp filter expressed in the 1D Fourier domain. The iteration effect is characterized by
and the Bayesian effect is characterized by
The ultimate (k=∞) solution does not depend on the noise-weighting w if β=0, but it depends on the noise-weighting w if β≠0. No modification is required for the backprojector for the new rFBP-MAP algorithm.
The noise-dependent weighting factor w in Equations (22) and (23) is not a constant. For the view-based noise weighting, w is a function of the view angle: w=w(view). For the ray-based noise weighting, w is a function of the ray: w=w(ray). A popular approach to assign the weighting factor is to let w(ray) be proportional to the reciprocal of the noise variance of the ray measurement. This approach is justified by using the likelihood function (i.e., the joint probability density function) as the objective function for an optimization problem. The philosophy is that we should trust the less noisy measurements more than noisier measurements. When k tends to infinity and β tends to zero, the modified ramp filter (23) becomes a conventional ramp filter and the rFBP-MAP algorithm reduces to the conventional FBP algorithm.
In implementing the rFBP-MAP algorithm, the inverse Fourier transform of Hk,β,w1D(ω) is assumed to be hk,β,w1D(t), which is the spatial-domain kernel of the 1D modified ramp filter. In the rFBP-MAP algorithm, since w is a function of the projection ray, w=w(t, θ). Let p(t, θ) be the projection at view θ and location t on the detector, and q(t, θ) be the filtered projection. Then q(t, θ) is defined by the following integral:
which is not a convolution because the kernel hk,β,w(t,θ)1D(τ) depends on θ and t. If the filtering procedure is implemented in the spatial domain as in Equation (24), the calculation cost is the same as convolution. Therefore, the rFBP-MAP algorithm is computationally efficient. The easiest and most efficient way to implement the proposed rFBP-MAP algorithm is to use (24) to filter the projections in the spatial domain.
Currently, there is no analytical expression for the integration kernel hk,β,w1D(t). An alternative way to calculate q(t, θ) is to implement Equation (24) at each view angle θ in the frequency domain as follows.
The above described rFBP-MAP algorithm is not restricted to the parallel-beam imaging geometry. It is optionally extended to other imaging geometries including fan-beam, cone-beam, planar-integrals and attenuated measurements as long as an FBP algorithm exists. The only modification to the FBP algorithm is in projection data filtering. Each measurement is assigned a weighting factor, and a frequency-domain filter transfer function is formed as (23), which is imaging geometry independent.
To illustrate the effects of the rFBP-MAP algorithm, a cadaver torso was scanned using an X-ray CT scanner using a low-dose setting, and the images were reconstructed with a conventional FBP (the Feldkamp) algorithm as well as the rFBP-MAP algorithm. The imaging geometry was cone-beam, the X-ray source trajectory was a circle of radius 600 mm. The detector had 64 rows, the row-height was 0.5 mm, each row had 896 channels, and the fan angle was 49.2°. The tube voltage was 120 kV and current was 60 mA. There were 1200 views uniformly sampled over 360°.
Using the Feldkamp algorithm as an FBP algorithm, the data were first weighted with a cosine function, then a 1D ramp filter was applied to each row of the cone-beam projections. Finally a cone-beam backprojection was used to generate a 3D image volume. For the implementation of the rFBP-MAP algorithm, the 1D ramp filter was replaced by the ramp filter as expressed in Equation (23). The iteration index k was chosen as 20,000, and the step-size α was set to 2.0. For an edge-preserved MAP reconstruction two β values were used: β=0.0005 and β=0. The Bayesian penalty function g(X) was the common quadratic function of the difference between the central pixel value and the average value of its four neighbors in its transaxial slice. In other words, R was simply a Laplacian, whose 1D version was a second order derivative with a kernel of [−1 2 −1]. The noise weighting function was defined by w(t,θ)=exp(−p(t,θ)), in which we assumed that the transmission measurement was approximately Poisson distributed and the line-integral p(t, θ) was the logarithm of the transmission measurement.
The edge map image was obtained in a slice-by-slice manner, using the 2D Sobel kernel. The edge detection threshold was set at the 70% of the maximum image value. A 3×3 smooth kernel was then used to blur the binary edge image to obtain the image B to be used in Equation (13).
The image volume was reconstructed in a 512×512×512 3D array, and a non-central axial slice is used for display. No other pre-filtering or post-filtering was applied to the reconstruction.
Now referring to
In order to improve the computation efficiency, the view-based noise weighting vFBP-MAP algorithm can be used for many applications. The noise weighting can be determined by the largest noise variance at each projection view. A vFBP-MAP reconstruction is shown in
In one embodiment of the image reconstructing device according to the current invention, the noise model includes Poisson statistics or the noise model is described by a compound Poisson statistics of photon intensity measurements with Gaussian distributed electronic noise. In probability theory, a compound Poisson distribution is the probability distribution of the sum of independent identically-distributed random variables, where the number of variables follows the Poisson distribution. Poisson distribution is well suited to describe the number of incident photons. Denote by N, the number of photons hitting the detector during the integration time is N˜Poisson(λ), where λ is the count rate. Each detected photon has a random energy Xi, whose distribution is described by the x-ray tube polychromatic spectra and detector efficiency. Assuming an energy integrating detector, the deposited energy is given by Y=ΣNXi. It follows that deposited energy Y follows the compound Poisson statistics (mean value and variance):
E[Y]=E[N]E[X], (25)
Var[Y]=E[N]E[X2]=E[N](E[X]2+Var[X]) (26)
A concept of variance gain is denoted by W and defined as follows:
W=Var[Y]/E[Y]. (27)
Note that for a Poisson distributed random variable W=1. For the compound Poisson variable we have:
W=E[X]+Var[X]/E[X]. (28)
Thus, noise variance gain is proportional to the mean effective energy of the spectra incident onto the detector. In general, there are several factors affecting mean spectrum energy:
The effect of mean spectrum energy on the noise variance gain is used for a compound Poisson model. Acquired data are given by:
Z=gY+e, (29)
where g is a detector gain factor, and e is the electronic noise with variance Ve. To measure Ve we collect data with x-ray tube switched off and measure the variance. The mean and variance are measured in time direction for each detector pixel independently. Statistics of the acquired data is given by:
E[Z]=gE[Y],Var[Z]=g2Var[Y]+Ve. (30)
It can be shown that
gW=(Var[Z]−Ve)/E[Z]. (31)
After collecting object data we can measure mean E[Z] and variance Var[Z] and compute gW. Note that gain g cannot be easily obtained from the raw data; to compensate the effect of unknown scale g, we calibrate the raw data by air scan data (WOBJ=W/WAIR). The proposed compound Poisson model of noise variance can be written as:
Var[Z]=Ve+gWE[Z], (32)
where W is given by Equation (28).
It is to be understood, however, that even though numerous characteristics and advantages of the present invention have been set forth in the foregoing description, together with details of the structure and function of the invention, the disclosure is illustrative only, and that although changes may be made in detail, especially in matters of shape, size and arrangement of parts, as well as implementation in software, hardware, or a combination of both, the changes are within the principles of the invention to the full extent indicated by the broad general meaning of the terms in which the appended claims are expressed.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4991093 | Roberge | Feb 1991 | A |
6438195 | Hsieh | Aug 2002 | B1 |
7653229 | Kaufhold et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
8135186 | Bouman | Mar 2012 | B2 |
9053538 | Takahashi | Jun 2015 | B2 |
20030076988 | Liang et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030219152 | August | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040114728 | Schlegel et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040258194 | Chen et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050113681 | DeFreitas | May 2005 | A1 |
20060109952 | Chen | May 2006 | A1 |
20070198203 | Kimura | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20080049891 | Yin | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080118128 | Toth | May 2008 | A1 |
20080135789 | Du | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080304731 | Kimura | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090161935 | Bruder | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20100034356 | Hayashida | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20110052030 | Bruder et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110058724 | Claus | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110150305 | Zeng et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120045108 | Shechter | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120294414 | Koehler | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130004041 | Yang | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130101194 | Zeng | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130202079 | Yu | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130202172 | Weitzel | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130251286 | Brendel et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140219417 | Batenburg et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101877124 | Nov 2010 | CN |
102596040 | Jul 2012 | CN |
2006025868 | Feb 2006 | JP |
2012-070814 | Apr 2012 | JP |
100825048 | Apr 2008 | KR |
2012073167 | Jun 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
La Rivière et al., “Reduction of Noise-Induced Streak Artifacts in X-Ray Computed Tomography Through Spline-Based Penalized-Likelihood Sinogram Smoothing”, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 24 No. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 105-111. |
Zamyatin et al., “Streak Artifact Reduction in Low Dose Computed Tomography”, Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), 2011 IEEE, pp. 4150-4151. |
Wang et al., “Noise Reduction for Low-Dose Single-Slice Helical CT Sinograms”, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 53 Issue 3, Jun. 2006, pp. 1230-1237. |
Sauver et al., “Nonstationary filtering for removal of signal dependent noise in reconstructions from projections”, 1989 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, May 23-26, 1989, pp. 1476-1479. |
Feng et al., “An angular frequency dependent filter for PET reconstruction”, 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Nov. 4-10, 2001, pp. 1742-1745. |
Lyra et al., “Filtering in SPECT Image Reconstruction”, International Journal of Biomedical Imaging, vol. 2011, pp. 1-14. |
Shtok et al., “Adaptive filtered-back-projection for computed tomography”, IEEE 25th Convention of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel, Dec. 3-5, 2008, pp. 528-532. |
Suzuki et al., “Comparison between an image reconstruction method of filtering backprojection and the filtered backprojection method”, Applied Optics, vol. 27 Issue 14, Jul. 15, 1988, pp. 2867-2870. |
International Search Report (in English) corresponding to International Application No. PCT/JP2013/070659 dated Nov. 5, 2013. |
Akifumi Fujita et al, “Evaluation of Ultra-low-dose Thoracic Multi-detector-row CT using Different Reconstruction Kernels and New Reconstruction Algorithms”, Journal “Nippon ACTA Radiologica”, Nov 25, 2003, p. 588-590, vol. 63 Issue No. 9, Japan Radiological Society, Kanagawa, Japan. |
Gengsheng L. Zeng. “A filtered backprojection algorithm with characteristics of the iterative landweber algorithm,” Medical Physics, Feb. 2012, vol. 39 (2), p. 603-607, vol. 39, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, USA. |
Omer Demirkaya, “Reduction of noise and image artifacts in computed tomography by nonlinear filtration of the projection images,” Proceedings of SPIE, Feb. 2001, p. 917-923, vol. 4322, SPIE, Bellingham, WA, USA. |
Gengsheng L. Zeng, “Filtered Backprojection Algorithm Can Outperform Iterative Maximum Likelihood Expectation-Maximization Algorithm,” International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, Mar. 2012, p. 114-120, vol. 22, Wiley Periodicals, Inc., USA. |
Hongbing Lu et al., “Analytical Noise Treatment for Low-Dose CT Projection Data by Penalized Weighted Least-Square Smoothing in the K-L Domain,” Proceedings of SPIE, 2002, p. 146-152, vol. 4682, SPIE, Bellingham, WA, USA. |
Ken Sauer et al., “Nonstationary Filtering of Transmission Tomograms in High Photon Counting Noise,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Sep. 1991, p. 445-452, vol. 10, IEEE, Iowa City, IA, USA. |
Junmei Zhong et al., “Image Denoising Based on Multiscale Singularity Detection for Cone Beam CT Breast Imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Jun. 2004, p. 696-703, vol. 23, IEEE, Iowa City, IA, USA. |
Tianfang Li et al., “Nonlinear Sinogram Smoothing for Low-Dose X-Ray CT,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Oct. 2004, p. 2505-2513, vol. 51, IEEE, Albuquerque, NM, USA. |
Patrick J. La Riviere et al., “Reduction of Noise-Induced Streak Artifacts in X-Ray Computed Tomography Through Spline-Based Penalized-Likelihood Sinogram Smoothing,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Jan. 2005, p. 105-111, vol. 24, Iowa City, IA, USA. |
Jing Wang et al., “Penalized Weighted Least-Squares Approach to Sinogram Noise Reduction and Image Reconstruction for Low-Dose X-Ray Computed Tomography,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Oct. 2006, p. 1272-1283, vol. 25, Iowa City, IA, USA. |
Marc Kachelriess et al., “Generalized multi-dimensional adaptive filtering for conventional and spiral single-slice, multi-slice, and cone-beam CT,” Medical Physics, Apr. 2001, p. 475-490, vol. 28, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, USA. |
Patrick J. La Riviere et al., “Penalized-likelihood sinogram smoothing for low-dose CT,” Medical Physics, Jun. 2005, p. 1676-1683, vol. 32, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, USA. |
Jiang Hsieh, “Adaptive streak artifact reduction in computed tomography resulting from excessive x-ray photon noise,” Medical Physics, Nov. 1998, p. 2139-2147, vol. 25, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, USA. |
Gengsheng L. Zeng et al., “A filtered backprojection MAP algorithm with nonuniform sampling and noise modeling,” Medical Physics, Apr. 2012, p. 2170-2178, vol. 39, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, USA. |
Chinese Office Action for Application 201380001535.4, dated Jan. 5, 2016. |
Korean Notice of Allowance of Corresponding Application No. 10-2013-7031515 dated Nov. 20, 2015. |
Extended European Search Report (in English) corresponding to European Application No. 13825580.7 dated Jul. 5, 2016. |
Gengsheng L.Zeng and Alex Zamyatin, “Ray-by-Ray Noise Weighting in a Filtered Backprojection (FBP) Algorithm,” 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC) M09-10, (2012). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140029819 A1 | Jan 2014 | US |