Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, Volume. 61, Issue 12, 1217001(2024)
Sparse-View Projection Spectral CT Reconstruction via HAMEN
Figures & Tables(10)
Fig. 5. Effect comparison of different reconstruction methods using 30 projection views
Table 1. Parameter settings for sparse-view projection spectral CT
View tableTable 1. Parameter settings for sparse-view projection spectral CT
Parameter Content Projection geometry Cone beam PCD model PcTK［ 27 ］，Johns Hopkins UniversityEnergy bin 20‒35，35‒50，50‒65，65‒80，80‒120 keV Image size 256×256 Sparse-view strategy 60 scans，every 6°
Table 2. Quantitative metrics of brain slice test results of different reconstruction methods
View tableTable 2. Quantitative metrics of brain slice test results of different reconstruction methods
Energy bin Parameter FDK TV RED-CNN［ 17 ］MultiChU-Net［ 19 ］MWCNN［ 20 ］HAMEN 20‒35 keV PSNR/dB 25.89 33.40 34.42 35.09 37.16 37.64 SSIM 0.4215 0.8963 0.9802 0.9837 0.9909 0.9935 FSIM 0.9303 0.9622 0.9823 0.9815 0.9925 0.9946 35‒50 keV PSNR/dB 27.05 31.92 35.68 35.90 37.23 37.95 SSIM 0.6634 0.9460 0.9825 0.9859 0.9943 0.9974 FSIM 0.9275 0.9631 0.9875 0.9837 0.9940 0.9948 50‒65 keV PSNR/dB 27.15 31.20 37.10 37.29 38.45 38.69 SSIM 0.8051 0.9610 0.9810 0.9865 0.9949 0.9968 FSIM 0.9250 0.9634 0.9886 0.9867 0.9942 0.9948 65‒80 keV PSNR/dB 27.85 32.53 37.90 38.21 38.83 39.09 SSIM 0.8517 0.9697 0.9872 0.9877 0.9952 0.9970 FSIM 0.9238 0.9636 0.9886 0.9878 0.9942 0.9948 80‒120 keV PSNR/dB 28.06 34.84 38.80 38.93 39.85 40.03 SSIM 0.8839 0.9820 0.9898 0.9905 0.9957 0.9972 FSIM 0.9230 0.9623 0.9887 0.9876 0.9943 0.9947
Table 3. Quantitative metrics of brain slice test results of HAMEN with different structures
View tableTable 3. Quantitative metrics of brain slice test results of HAMEN with different structures
HAM MFF EE DF 20‒35 keV 50‒65 keV 80‒120 keV PSNR /dB SSIM FSIM PSNR /dB SSIM FSIM PSNR /dB SSIM FSIM √ 34.34 0.9835 0.9835 36.77 0.9872 0.9839 37.19 0.9885 0.9863 √ √ 36.41 0.9862 0.9877 37.99 0.9891 0.9881 38.67 0.9924 0.9889 √ √ 36.73 0.9892 0.9891 37.98 0.9923 0.9896 38.79 0.9937 0.9894 √ √ 34.83 0.9859 0.9879 37.08 0.9879 0.9884 37.46 0.9897 0.9881 √ √ √ 37.62 0.9931 0.9921 38.68 0.9965 0.9924 39.98 0.9969 0.9925 √ √ √ 37.12 0.9892 0.9913 38.12 0.9926 0.9915 39.65 0.9934 0.9911 √ √ √ √ 37.64 0.9935 0.9946 38.69 0.9968 0.9948 40.03 0.9972 0.9947
Table 4. Quantitative metrics of brain slice test results using 30 projection views
View tableTable 4. Quantitative metrics of brain slice test results using 30 projection views
Energy bin Parameter FDK TV RED-CNN［ 17 ］MultiChU-Net［ 19 ］MWCNN［ 20 ］HAMEN 20‒35 keV PSNR /dB 21.15 27.41 31.02 34.73 35.14 35.71 SSIM 0.2336 0.6423 0.7056 0.8348 0.8450 0.8546 FSIM 0.9118 0.9206 0.9781 0.9774 0.9778 0.9816 35‒50 keV PSNR /dB 22.24 29.17 33.59 35.20 35.82 36.17 SSIM 0.4158 0.8986 0.9091 0.9209 0.9255 0.9348 FSIM 0.9141 0.9590 0.9838 0.9791 0.9816 0.9830 50‒65 keV PSNR /dB 22.23 29.05 35.94 36.82 37.41 37.76 SSIM 0.5783 0.9336 0.9442 0.9549 0.9587 0.9632 FSIM 0.9142 0.9599 0.9852 0.9818 0.9833 0.9844 65‒80 keV PSNR /dB 22.87 30.26 37.02 37.17 38.20 38.83 SSIM 0.6465 0.9372 0.9521 0.9656 0.9696 0.9719 FSIM 0.9140 0.9531 0.9856 0.9829 0.9838 0.9844 80‒120 keV PSNR /dB 23.02 30.70 38.12 38.58 39.21 39.60 SSIM 0.7001 0.9527 0.9611 0.9733 0.9739 0.9775 FSIM 0.9141 0.9570 0.9858 0.9815 0.9820 0.9841
Table 5. Quantitative metrics of reconstructed images of energy bin 1 with different noise levels
View tableTable 5. Quantitative metrics of reconstructed images of energy bin 1 with different noise levels
Photon density Parameter FDK TV RED-CNN［ 17 ］MultiChU-Net［ 19 ］MWCNN［ 20 ］HAMEN 5×106 PSNR /dB 25.89 33.40 34.42 35.09 37.16 37.64 SSIM 0.4215 0.8963 0.9802 0.9837 0.9909 0.9935 FSIM 0.9303 0.9622 0.9823 0.9815 0.9925 0.9946 5×105 PSNR /dB 23.85 31.42 32.17 34.37 36.31 36.90 SSIM 0.4109 0.8829 0.9736 0.9769 0.9803 0.9863 FSIM 0.9239 0.9218 0.9657 0.9798 0.9877 0.9884 5×104 PSNR /dB 21.17 28.59 29.62 33.23 35.36 35.89 SSIM 0.3937 0.8683 0.9574 0.9657 0.9706 0.9742 FSIM 0.9185 0.9164 0.9548 0.9732 0.9812 0.9827
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Junyu Qi, Zaifeng Shi, Fanning Kong, Tianhao Ge, Lili Zhang. Sparse-View Projection Spectral CT Reconstruction via HAMEN[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2024, 61(12): 1217001
Paper Information
Category: Medical Optics and Biotechnology
Received: Jul. 12, 2023
Accepted: Sep. 18, 2023
Published Online: Jun. 5, 2024
The Author Email: Zaifeng Shi (shizaifeng@tju.edu.cn)
CSTR:32186.14.LOP231696
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20