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
[11]   Comparison of 3-D maximum a posteriori and filtered backprojection algorithms for high-resolution animal imaging with microPET [J].
Chatziioannou, A ;
Qi, J ;
Moore, A ;
Annala, A ;
Nguyen, K ;
Leahy, R ;
Cherry, SR .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 2000, 19 (05) :507-512
[12]   MicroPET: A high resolution PET scanner for imaging small animals [J].
Cherry, SR ;
Shao, Y ;
Silverman, RW ;
Meadors, K ;
Siegel, S ;
Chatziioannou, A ;
Young, JW ;
Jones, WF ;
Moyers, JC ;
Newport, D ;
Boutefnouchet, A ;
Farquhar, TH ;
Andreaco, M ;
Paulus, MJ ;
Binkley, DM ;
Nutt, R ;
Phelps, ME .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, 1997, 44 (03) :1161-1166
[13]   A MODIFIED EXPECTATION MAXIMIZATION ALGORITHM FOR PENALIZED LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION IN EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY [J].
DEPIERRO, AR .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 1995, 14 (01) :132-137
[14]   Spatial resolution properties of penalized-likelihood image reconstruction: Space-invariant tomographs [J].
Fessler, JA ;
Rogers, WL .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, 1996, 5 (09) :1346-1358
[15]   SPACE-ALTERNATING GENERALIZED EXPECTATION-MAXIMIZATION ALGORITHM [J].
FESSLER, JA ;
HERO, AO .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, 1994, 42 (10) :2664-2677
[16]  
Frese T, 2002, IEEE T IMAGE PROCESS, V11, P756, DOI [10.1109/TIP.2002.801586, 10.1109/TIP2002.801586]
[17]   CONSTRAINED RESTORATION AND THE RECOVERY OF DISCONTINUITIES [J].
GEMAN, D ;
REYNOLDS, G .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, 1992, 14 (03) :367-383
[18]   BAYESIAN RECONSTRUCTIONS FROM EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY DATA USING A MODIFIED EM ALGORITHM [J].
GREEN, PJ .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 1990, 9 (01) :84-93
[19]   A GENERALIZED EM ALGORITHM FOR 3-D BAYESIAN RECONSTRUCTION FROM POISSON DATA USING GIBBS PRIORS [J].
HEBERT, T ;
LEAHY, R .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 1989, 8 (02) :194-202
[20]   ANALYSIS OF POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY SCINTILLATION-DETECTORS WITH WEDGE FACES AND INTER-CRYSTAL SEPTA [J].
HOLMES, TJ ;
FICKE, DC .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, 1985, 32 (01) :826-830