• 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