Comparative Assessment of Noise Properties for Two Deep Learning CT Image Reconstruction Techniques and Filtered Back Projection

Two deep-learning image reconstruction (DLIR) techniques from two different CT vendors have recently been introduced into clinical practice.To characterize the noise properties of two DLIR techniques with different training methods, using a phantom containing a simple uniform and a complex non-uniform region.A water-bath phantom with a diameter of 300 mm was used as a base phantom. A textured phantom with a diameter of 128 mm, which was made of two materials, one equivalent to water and the other being 12 mg/mL diluted iodine, irregularly mixed to create a complex texture (non-uniform region), was placed in the base phantom. Thirty repeated phantom scans were performed using two CT scanners (GE, Revolution CT with Apex Edition; Canon, Aquilion One PRISM Edition) at two dose levels (CTDI: 5 and 15 mGy). Images were reconstructed with each CT system's filtered back projection (FBP) and DLIR [GE, TrueFidelity (TF); Canon, Advanced intelligent Clear-IQ Engine Body Sharp (AC)] for three process strengths. For basic characteristics of noise, the standard deviation (SD) and noise power spectrum (NPS) were measured for the uniform (water) region. A noise magnitude map was generated by calculating the inter-image SD at each pixel position across the 30 images. Then, a noise reduction map (NRM), which visualizes the relative differences in noise magnitude between FBP and DLIR, was calculated. The NRM values ranged from 0.0 to 1.0. A low NRM value represents a less aggressive noise reduction. The histograms of the NRM value were analyzed for the uniform and non-uniform regions.The reduction in noise magnitude compared with FBP tended to be greater with AC (45%-85%) than with TF (32%-65%). The average NPS frequencies of TF and AC were almost comparable to those of FBP, except for the low-dose condition and the high noise reduction strength for AC. The NRM values of TF and AC were higher in the uniform region than in the non-uniform region. In the non-uniform region, TF's average NRM values (0.21-0.48) tended to be lower than AC's (0.39-0.78). The histograms for TF showed a small overlap between the uniform and the non-uniform regions; in contrast, those for AC showed a greater overlap. This difference seems to indicate that TF processes the uniform and non-uniform regions more differently than AC does.This study has revealed a distinct difference in characteristics between the two DLIR techniques: TF tends to offer less aggressive noise reduction in non-uniform regions and preserve the original signals, whereas AC tends to prioritize noise filtering over edge-preservation, especially at the low-dose condition and with the high noise reduction strength. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.