Finding the optimal tube current and iterative reconstruction strength in liver imaging; two needles in one haystack

Relationship between pericoronary adipose tissue attenuation value and image reconstruction parameters

Rationale and objectives

To investigate the relationship between the pericoronary adipose tissue CT mean attenuation (PCATMA) measurement and image reconstruction parameters (adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-veo (ASIR-V) percentage, kernel, and slice thickness).

Materials and methods

One hundred and ninety-eight consecutive patients underwent CT coronary angiography at 100 kilovoltage peak (kVp) (n = 102) and 120 kVp (n = 96) were included. All scans were reconstructed by three means: 1. with 11 different ASIR-V percentages, standard kernel and 0.625 mm; 2. with soft, standard, detail, and bone kernels, 60 % ASIR-V, and 0.625 mm; 3. at 0.625 mm and 1.25 mm slice thickness, standard kernel and 60 % ASIR-V. PCATMA of the three main coronary arteries was calculated using a dedicated software. Linear regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Friedman test, and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis.

Results

Linear regression of pooled average data showed that the PCATMA was positively and linearly correlated with the ASIR-V percentage (all R squared >0.99). Regression analysis of individual data showed that most R squared were greater than 0.8 or 0.9, but their slope consisted of a relatively wide range. The difference of PCATMA among different kernels for each coronary artery reached statistically significant levels (P < 0.001), particularly for the difference between standard and bone kernel. Most of the differences between 0.625 mm and 1.25 mm for LAD, LCX, and RCA at 100 kVp and 120 kVp reached statistical significance (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

PCATMA correlates linearly with the strength of ASIR-V. Reconstruction kernel and slice thickness also affect PCATMA, especially for the sharp kernels.

How subjective CT image quality assessment becomes surprisingly reliable: pairwise comparisons instead of Likert scale

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to improve the reliability of subjective IQ assessment using a pairwise comparison (PC) method instead of a Likert scale method in abdominal CT scans.

METHODS

Abdominal CT scans (single-center) were retrospectively selected between September 2019 and February 2020 in a prior study. Sample variance in IQ was obtained by adding artificial noise using dedicated reconstruction software, including reconstructions with filtered backprojection and varying iterative reconstruction strengths. Two datasets (each n = 50) were composed with either higher or lower IQ variation with the 25 original scans being part of both datasets. Using in-house developed software, six observers (five radiologists, one resident) rated both datasets via both the PC method (forcing observers to choose preferred scans out of pairs of scans resulting in a ranking) and a 5-point Likert scale. The PC method was optimized using a sorting algorithm to minimize necessary comparisons. The inter- and intraobserver agreements were assessed for both methods with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (mean age 61 years ± 15.5; 56% men) were evaluated. The ICC for interobserver agreement for the high-variation dataset increased from 0.665 (95%CI 0.396-0.814) to 0.785 (95%CI 0.676-0.867) when the PC method was used instead of a Likert scale. For the low-variation dataset, the ICC increased from 0.276 (95%CI 0.034-0.500) to 0.562 (95%CI 0.337-0.729). Intraobserver agreement increased for four out of six observers.

CONCLUSION

The PC method is more reliable for subjective IQ assessment indicated by improved inter- and intraobserver agreement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study shows that the pairwise comparison method is a more reliable method for subjective image quality assessment. Improved reliability is of key importance for optimization studies, validation of automatic image quality assessment algorithms, and training of AI algorithms.

KEY POINTS

• Subjective assessment of diagnostic image quality via Likert scale has limited reliability. • A pairwise comparison method improves the inter- and intraobserver agreement. • The pairwise comparison method is more reliable for CT optimization studies.

Learning effects in visual grading assessment of model-based reconstruction algorithms in abdominal Computed Tomography

Objectives

Images reconstructed with higher strengths of iterative reconstruction algorithms may impair radiologists' subjective perception and diagnostic performance due to changes in the amplitude of different spatial frequencies of noise. The aim of the present study was to ascertain if radiologists can learn to adapt to the unusual appearance of images produced by higher strengths of Advanced modeled iterative reconstruction algorithm (ADMIRE).

Methods

Two previously published studies evaluated the performance of ADMIRE in non-contrast and contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. Images from 25 (first material) and 50 (second material) patients, were reconstructed with ADMIRE strengths 3, 5 (AD3, AD5) and filtered back projection (FBP). Radiologists assessed the images using image criteria from the European guidelines for quality criteria in CT. To ascertain if there was a learning effect, new analyses of data from the two studies was performed by introducing a time variable in the mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression model.

Results

In both materials, a significant negative attitude to ADMIRE 5 at the beginning of the viewing was strengthened during the progress of the reviews for both liver parenchyma (first material: -0.70, p < 0.01, second material: -0.96, p < 0.001) and overall image quality (first material:-0.59, p < 0.05, second material::-1.26, p < 0.001). For ADMIRE 3, an early positive attitude for the algorithm was noted, with no significant change over time for all criteria except one (overall image quality), where a significant negative trend over time (-1.08, p < 0.001) was seen in the second material.

Conclusions

With progression of reviews in both materials, an increasing dislike for ADMIRE 5 images was apparent for two image criteria. In this time perspective (weeks or months), no learning effect towards accepting the algorithm could be demonstrated.

A New Algorithm for Automatically Calculating Noise, Spatial Resolution, and Contrast Image Quality Metrics: Proof-of-Concept and Agreement With Subjective Scores in Phantom and Clinical Abdominal CT

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to develop a proof-of-concept computer algorithm to automatically determine noise, spatial resolution, and contrast-related image quality (IQ) metrics in abdominal portal venous phase computed tomography (CT) imaging and to assess agreement between resulting objective IQ metrics and subjective radiologist IQ ratings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An algorithm was developed to calculate noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ parameters. The algorithm was subsequently used on 2 datasets of anthropomorphic phantom CT scans, acquired on 2 different scanners (n = 57 each), and on 1 dataset of patient abdominal CT scans (n = 510). These datasets include a range of high to low IQ: in the phantom dataset, this was achieved through varying scanner settings (tube voltage, tube current, reconstruction algorithm); in the patient dataset, lower IQ images were obtained by reconstructing 30 consecutive portal venous phase scans as if they had been acquired at lower mAs. Five noise, 1 spatial, and 13 contrast parameters were computed for the phantom datasets; for the patient dataset, 5 noise, 1 spatial, and 18 contrast parameters were computed. Subjective IQ rating was done using a 5-point Likert scale: 2 radiologists rated a single phantom dataset each, and another 2 radiologists rated the patient dataset in consensus. General agreement between IQ metrics and subjective IQ scores was assessed using Pearson correlation analysis. Likert scores were grouped into 2 categories, "insufficient" (scores 1-2) and "sufficient" (scores 3-5), and differences in computed IQ metrics between these categories were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

The algorithm was able to automatically calculate all IQ metrics for 100% of the included scans. Significant correlations with subjective radiologist ratings were found for 4 of 5 noise (R2 range = 0.55-0.70), 1 of 1 spatial resolution (R2 = 0.21 and 0.26), and 10 of 13 contrast (R2 range = 0.11-0.73) parameters in the phantom datasets and for 4 of 5 noise (R2 range = 0.019-0.096), 1 of 1 spatial resolution (R2 = 0.11), and 16 of 18 contrast (R2 range = 0.008-0.116) parameters in the patient dataset. Computed metrics that significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" categories were 4 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, 9 and 10 of 13 contrast parameters for phantom the datasets and 3 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, and 10 of 18 contrast parameters for the patient dataset.

CONCLUSION

The developed algorithm was able to successfully calculate objective noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ metrics of both phantom and clinical abdominal CT scans. Furthermore, multiple calculated IQ metrics of all 3 categories were in agreement with subjective radiologist IQ ratings and significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" IQ scans. These results demonstrate the feasibility and potential of algorithm-determined objective IQ. Such an algorithm should be applicable to any scan and may help in optimization and quality control through automatic IQ assessment in daily clinical practice.