DocumentCode
793184
Title
Comparison between MAP and postprocessed ML for image reconstruction in emission tomography when anatomical knowledge is available
Author
Nuyts, Johan ; Baete, Kristof ; Bequé, Dirk ; Dupont, Patrick
Author_Institution
Nucl. Medicine, Katholieke Univ., Leuven, Belgium
Volume
24
Issue
5
fYear
2005
fDate
5/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
Firstpage
667
Lastpage
675
Abstract
Previously, the noise characteristics obtained with penalized-likelihood reconstruction [or maximum a posteriori (MAP)] have been compared to those obtained with postsmoothed maximum-likelihood (ML) reconstruction, for emission tomography applications requiring uniform resolution. It was found that penalized-likelihood reconstruction was not superior to postsmoothed ML. In this paper, a similar comparison is made, but now for applications where the noise suppression is tuned with anatomical information. It is assumed that limited but exact anatomical information is available. Two methods were compared. In the first method, the anatomical information is incorporated in the prior of a MAP-algorithm and is, therefore, imposed during MAP-reconstruction. The second method starts from an unconstrained ML-reconstruction, and imposes the anatomical information in a postprocessing step. The theoretical analysis was verified with simulations: small lesions were inserted in two different objects, and noisy PET data were produced and reconstructed with both methods. The resulting images were analyzed with bias-noise curves, and by computing the detection performance of the nonprewhitening observer and a channelized Hotelling observer. Our analysis and simulations indicate that the postprocessing method is inferior, unless the noise correlations between neighboring pixels are taken into account. This can be done by applying a so-called prewhitening filter. However, because the prewhitening filter is shift variant and object dependent, it seems that MAP reconstruction is the more efficient method.
Keywords
image reconstruction; maximum likelihood estimation; medical image processing; positron emission tomography; anatomical knowledge; bias-noise curves; channelized Hotelling observer; emission tomography; image reconstruction; maximum a posteriori; noise suppression; nonprewhitening observer; penalized-likelihood reconstruction; postprocessed maximum-likelihood; postsmoothed maximum-likelihood; Analytical models; Computational modeling; Filters; Image quality; Image reconstruction; Image resolution; Imaging phantoms; Nuclear medicine; Spatial resolution; Tomography; Anatomical prior; iterative reconstruction; maximum-a-posteriori reconstruction; penalized-likelihood; Algorithms; Artificial Intelligence; Brain; Computer Simulation; Image Enhancement; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Information Storage and Retrieval; Likelihood Functions; Models, Anatomic; Models, Biological; Models, Statistical; Pattern Recognition, Automated; Phantoms, Imaging; Positron-Emission Tomography; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Subtraction Technique;
fLanguage
English
Journal_Title
Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on
Publisher
ieee
ISSN
0278-0062
Type
jour
DOI
10.1109/TMI.2005.846850
Filename
1425672
Link To Document