↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The effects of iterative reconstruction and kernel selection on quantitative computed tomography measures of lung density
Published in
Medical Physics, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/mp.12255
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To determine the effects of iterative reconstruction (IR) and high frequency kernels on quantitative computed tomography (qCT) density measures at reduced X-ray dose. The COPDGene 2 Phantom (CTP 698, The Phantom Laboratory, Salem, NY) with four embedded lung mimicking foam densities (12lb, 20lb, and 4lb), as well as water, air, and acrylic reference inserts was imaged using a GE 64 slice CT750 HD scanner in helical mode with four current-time products ranging from 12-100 mAs. The raw acquired data was reconstructed using standard (STD - low frequency) and Bone (high frequency) kernels with filtered back projection (FBP), 100% ASIR, and Veo reconstruction algorithms. The reference density inserts were manually segmented using Slicer3D (www.slicer.org) and the mean, standard deviation, and histograms of the segmented regions were generated using Fiji (http://fiji.sc/Fiji) for each reconstruction. Measurements of threshold values placed on the cumulative frequency distribution of voxels determined by these measured histograms at 5%, PD5phant , and 15%, PD15phant , (analogous to the relative area below -950 HU (RA950) and percent density 15 (PD15) in human lung emphysema quantification, respectively), were also performed. The use of high-resolution kernels in conjunction with ASIR, and Veo did not significantly affect the mean Hounsfield units (HU) of each of the density standards (<4 HU deviation) and current-time products within the phantom when compared with the STD+FBP reconstruction conventionally used in clinical applications. A truncation of the scanner reported HU values at -1024 that shifts the mean towards more positive values was found to cause a systematic error in lower attenuating regions. Use of IR drove convergence toward the mean of measured histograms (~100-137% increase in the number measured voxels at the mean of the histogram) while the combination of Bone+ASIR preserved the standard deviation of HU values about the mean compared to STD+FBP, with the added effect of improved spatial resolution and accuracy in airway measures. PD5phant and PD15phant were most similar between the Bone+ASIR and STD+FBP in all regions except those affected by the -1024 truncation artifact. Extension of the scanner reportable HU values below the present limit of -1024 will mitigate discrepancies found in qCT lung densitometry in low-density regions. The density histogram became more sharply peaked and standard deviation was reduced for IR, directly effecting density thresholds, PD5phant and PD15phant, placed on the cumulative frequency distribution of each region in the phantom, which serve as analogs to RA950 and PD15 typically used in lung density quantitation. The combination of high frequency kernels (Bone) with ASIR mitigates this effect and preserves density measures derived from the image histogram. Moreover, previous studies have shown improved accuracy of qCT airway measures of wall thickness (WT) and wall area percentage (WA%) when using high frequency kernels in combination with ASIR to better represent airway walls. The results therefore suggest an IR approach for accurate assessment of airway and parenchymal density measures in the lungs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 16 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 8 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Computer Science 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 19 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#6,405
of 7,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,975
of 324,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#95
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,985 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.