Open Access
7 March 2023 UNet and MobileNet CNN-based model observers for CT protocol optimization: comparative performance evaluation by means of phantom CT images
Federico Valeri, Maurizio Bartolucci, Elena Cantoni, Roberto Carpi, Evaristo Cisbani, Ilaria Cupparo, Sandra Doria, Cesare Gori, Mauro Grigioni, Lorenzo Lasagni, Alessandro Marconi, Lorenzo Nicola Mazzoni, Vittorio Miele, Silvia Pradella, Guido Risaliti, Valentina Sanguineti, Diego Sona, Letizia Vannucchi, Adriana Taddeucci
Author Affiliations +
Fig. 1
Lateral view (a) and top view (b) of one of the two blocks containing five inserts filled with iodinated contrast media.

Table 1
Selected subensembles from the original image dataset characterized by insert (object) size and contrast.
No. imagesobject diametercontrast
d (mm)C (HU)
10,000Homogeneous images
3000345
3000355
3000445
3000455
2800545
2800555
1200645
1200745

Fig. 2
Example of reconstructed images (iterative reconstruction technique) with (a) 4 mm and (b) 7 mm inserts at the lower contrast (45 HU); it is noticeable that object visibility depends both on size and CTDIvol.

Fig. 3
Screenshot of the software interface developed to collect the human observer response to CT images visual inspection.

Fig. 4
Schematic illustration of the developed UNet-based CNN architecture.

Fig. 5
Schematic illustration of the MobileNetV2-based CNN architecture used for the classification task.

Fig. 6
Schematic illustration of the MobileNetV2-based CNN architecture developed for the localization task.

Table 2
Selected thresholds for the LROC curves computation for different insert diameters.
Insert diameter (mm)34567
Threshold (mm)2.32.32.53.03.5

Fig. 7
Human observer performances quantified by LAUC versus CTDIvol, for different object sizes, contrasts (left: 45 HU, right: 55 HU), and reconstruction techniques (a) FBP and (b) IR.

Fig. 8
Overall MO and human observer performances quantified by LAUC versus CTDIvol, for the two reconstruction techniques (a) FBP and (b) IR, with associated standard errors.

Fig. 9
Comparison of human observer and MO LAUCs versus CTDIvol for the images with an object size of 4 mm, C=45  HU, and IR reconstruction, with associated standard errors.

Table 3
MAPE between human observer and MO LAUCs for full IR and FBP datasets and a representative case (Fig. 9).
CNNFBPIR4 mm, IR, C=45  HU
UNet2.361.431.19
MobileNetV22.491.522.48

Fig. 10
MOs localization accuracy metric versus each of the independent parameters, from left to right: insert diameter, insert contrast, CTDIvol, and reconstruction techniques.

Fig. 11
MOs score prediction accuracy metric versus each of the independent parameters, as in Fig. 10.

Table 4
Human-model inter-raters statistical indices over the entire dataset.
CNNCohen kappaS-statisticsKrippendorff’s AlphaICC
UNet0.50.560.770.77
MobileNetV20.530.570.830.83

Advertisement
Advertisement
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission  Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace
KEYWORDS
Computed tomography

Education and training

Molybdenum

Mathematical optimization

Image restoration

Infrared imaging

Image quality

Back to Top