The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient Study
<b>Background</b>: This study aims to evaluate the impact of various weighting factors (WFs) on the quality of weighted average (WA) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) non-contrast brain images and to determine the optimal WF value. Because they simulate standard CT images, 0.4-WA re...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Diagnostics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/2/180 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832588724492304384 |
|---|---|
| author | Doris Šegota Ritoša Doris Dodig Slavica Kovačić Nina Bartolović Ivan Brumini Petra Valković Zujić Slaven Jurković Damir Miletić |
| author_facet | Doris Šegota Ritoša Doris Dodig Slavica Kovačić Nina Bartolović Ivan Brumini Petra Valković Zujić Slaven Jurković Damir Miletić |
| author_sort | Doris Šegota Ritoša |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Background</b>: This study aims to evaluate the impact of various weighting factors (WFs) on the quality of weighted average (WA) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) non-contrast brain images and to determine the optimal WF value. Because they simulate standard CT images, 0.4-WA reconstructions are routinely used. <b>Methods</b>: In the initial phase of the research, quantitative and qualitative analyses of WA DECT images of an anthropomorphic head phantom, utilizing WFs ranging from 0 to 1 in 0.1 increments, were conducted. Based on the phantom study findings, WFs of 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 were chosen for patient analyses, which were identically carried out on 85 patients who underwent non-contrast head DECT. Three radiologists performed subjective phantom and patient analyses. <b>Results</b>: Quantitative phantom image analysis revealed the best gray-to-white matter contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at the highest WFs and minimal noise artifacts at the lowest WF values. However, the WA reconstructions were deemed non-diagnostic by all three readers. Two readers found 0.6-WA patient reconstructions significantly superior to 0.4-WA images (<i>p</i> < 0.001), while reader 1 found them to be equally good (<i>p</i> = 0.871). All readers agreed that 0.8-WA images exhibited the lowest image quality. <b>Conclusions</b>: In conclusion, 0.6-WA reconstructions demonstrated superior image quality over 0.4-WA and are recommended for routine non-contrast brain DECT. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-c60a66ad83a74248ba9e2e17bc3f958c |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2075-4418 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diagnostics |
| spelling | doaj-art-c60a66ad83a74248ba9e2e17bc3f958c2025-01-24T13:29:01ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182025-01-0115218010.3390/diagnostics15020180The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient StudyDoris Šegota Ritoša0Doris Dodig1Slavica Kovačić2Nina Bartolović3Ivan Brumini4Petra Valković Zujić5Slaven Jurković6Damir Miletić7Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Krešimirova 42, 51000 Rijeka, CroatiaEuropean Telemedicine Clinic S.L., C/Marina 16-18, 08005 Barcelona, SpainDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Krešimirova 42, 51000 Rijeka, CroatiaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Krešimirova 42, 51000 Rijeka, CroatiaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Krešimirova 42, 51000 Rijeka, CroatiaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Krešimirova 42, 51000 Rijeka, CroatiaDepartment of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Krešimirova 42, 51000 Rijeka, CroatiaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Krešimirova 42, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia<b>Background</b>: This study aims to evaluate the impact of various weighting factors (WFs) on the quality of weighted average (WA) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) non-contrast brain images and to determine the optimal WF value. Because they simulate standard CT images, 0.4-WA reconstructions are routinely used. <b>Methods</b>: In the initial phase of the research, quantitative and qualitative analyses of WA DECT images of an anthropomorphic head phantom, utilizing WFs ranging from 0 to 1 in 0.1 increments, were conducted. Based on the phantom study findings, WFs of 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 were chosen for patient analyses, which were identically carried out on 85 patients who underwent non-contrast head DECT. Three radiologists performed subjective phantom and patient analyses. <b>Results</b>: Quantitative phantom image analysis revealed the best gray-to-white matter contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at the highest WFs and minimal noise artifacts at the lowest WF values. However, the WA reconstructions were deemed non-diagnostic by all three readers. Two readers found 0.6-WA patient reconstructions significantly superior to 0.4-WA images (<i>p</i> < 0.001), while reader 1 found them to be equally good (<i>p</i> = 0.871). All readers agreed that 0.8-WA images exhibited the lowest image quality. <b>Conclusions</b>: In conclusion, 0.6-WA reconstructions demonstrated superior image quality over 0.4-WA and are recommended for routine non-contrast brain DECT.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/2/180anthropomorphic head phantomcontrast-to-noise ratiodual energy head CTprotocol optimizationweighted average imagesweighting factors |
| spellingShingle | Doris Šegota Ritoša Doris Dodig Slavica Kovačić Nina Bartolović Ivan Brumini Petra Valković Zujić Slaven Jurković Damir Miletić The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient Study Diagnostics anthropomorphic head phantom contrast-to-noise ratio dual energy head CT protocol optimization weighted average images weighting factors |
| title | The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient Study |
| title_full | The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient Study |
| title_fullStr | The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient Study |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient Study |
| title_short | The Impact of Weighting Factors on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Image Quality in Non-Contrast Head Examinations: Phantom and Patient Study |
| title_sort | impact of weighting factors on dual energy computed tomography image quality in non contrast head examinations phantom and patient study |
| topic | anthropomorphic head phantom contrast-to-noise ratio dual energy head CT protocol optimization weighted average images weighting factors |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/2/180 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dorissegotaritosa theimpactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT dorisdodig theimpactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT slavicakovacic theimpactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT ninabartolovic theimpactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT ivanbrumini theimpactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT petravalkoviczujic theimpactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT slavenjurkovic theimpactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT damirmiletic theimpactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT dorissegotaritosa impactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT dorisdodig impactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT slavicakovacic impactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT ninabartolovic impactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT ivanbrumini impactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT petravalkoviczujic impactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT slavenjurkovic impactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy AT damirmiletic impactofweightingfactorsondualenergycomputedtomographyimagequalityinnoncontrastheadexaminationsphantomandpatientstudy |