Quantitative comparison of FBP, EM, and Bayesian reconstruction algorithms for the IndyPET scanner

被引:64
作者
Frese, T
Rouze, NC
Bouman, CA
Sauer, K
Hutchins, GD
机构
[1] McKinsey & Co Inc, Chicago, IL 60603 USA
[2] Indiana Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[3] Purdue Univ, Sch Elect & Comp Engn, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
[4] Univ Notre Dame, Dept Elect Engn, Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA
关键词
Bayesian methods; image reconstruction; PET; tomography;
D O I
10.1109/TMI.2002.808353
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
We quantitatively compare filtered backprojection (FBP), expectation-maximization (EM), and Bayesian reconstruction algorithms as applied to the IndyPET scanner-a dedicated research scanner which has been developed for small and intermediate field of view imaging applications. In contrast to previous approaches that rely on Monte Carlo simulations, a key feature of our investigation is the use of an empirical system kernel determined from scans of line source phantoms. This kernel is incorporated into the forward model of the EM and Bayesian algorithms to achieve resolution recovery. Three data sets are used, data collected on the IndyPET scanner using a bar phantom and a Hoffman three-dimensional brain phantom, and simulated data containing a hot lesion added to a uniform background. Reconstruction quality is analyzed quantitatively in terms of bias-variance measures (bar phantom) and mean square error (lesion phantom). We observe that without use of the empirical system kernel, the FBP, EM, and Bayesian algorithms give similar performance. However, with the inclusion of the empirical kernel, the iterative algorithms provide superior reconstructions compared with FBP, both in terms of visual quality and quantitative measures. Furthermore, Bayesian methods outperform EM. We conclude that significant improvements in reconstruction quality can be realized by combining accurate models of the system response with Bayesian reconstruction algorithms.
引用
收藏
页码:258 / 276
页数:19
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   CALCULATION OF THE ROTATIONAL CENTERS IN COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY SINOGRAMS [J].
AZEVEDO, SG ;
SCHNEBERK, DJ ;
FITCH, JP ;
MARTZ, HE .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, 1990, 37 (04) :1525-1540
[2]   Characterization of dynamic 3-D PET imaging for functional brain mapping [J].
Barnes, D ;
Egan, G ;
OKeefe, G ;
Abbott, D .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 1997, 16 (03) :261-269
[3]   A COMPARISON OF 3 COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE PET IMAGING-SYSTEMS [J].
BATCHELOR, S ;
BLAKE, GM ;
SAUNDERS, JE .
NUCLEAR MEDICINE COMMUNICATIONS, 1992, 13 (01) :20-27
[4]  
Blake A., 1987, Visual Reconstruction
[5]   A unified approach to statistical tomography using coordinate descent optimization [J].
Bouman, CA ;
Sauer, K .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, 1996, 5 (03) :480-492
[6]   A generalized Gaussian image model for edge-preserving MAP estimation [J].
Bournan, Charles ;
Sauer, Ken .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, 1993, 2 (03) :296-310
[7]  
Brette S, 1996, FUND THEOR, V70, P199
[8]  
Brix G, 1997, J NUCL MED, V38, P1614
[9]   PRECISION AND ACCURACY OF REGIONAL RADIOACTIVITY QUANTITATION USING THE MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD EM RECONSTRUCTION ALGORITHM [J].
CARSON, RE ;
YAN, YC ;
CHODKOWSKI, B ;
YAP, TK ;
DAUBEWITHERSPOON, ME .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 1994, 13 (03) :526-537
[10]   Comparing lesion detection performance for PET image reconstruction algorithms: A case study [J].
Chan, MT ;
Leahy, RM ;
Mumcuoglu, EU ;
Cherry, SR ;
Czernin, J ;
Chatziioannou, A .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, 1997, 44 (04) :1558-1563