Quantitative comparison of planar coded aperture imaging reconstruction methods. (1st January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Meißner, T.; Rozhkov, V.; Hesser, J.; Nahm, W.; Loew, N.
• Is Part Of: Journal of instrumentation. Volume 18:Number 1(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-01-01
• Subjects: Image reconstruction in medical imaging -- Search for radioactive and fissile materials -- Gamma camera, SPECT, PET PET/CT, coronary CT angiography (CTA) -- Medical-image reconstruction methods and algorithms, computer-aided diagnosis; Scientific apparatus and instruments -- Periodicals; 502.84
• DOI: 10.1088/1748-0221/18/01/P01006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1748-0221

Abstract

Abstract: Imaging distributions of radioactive sources plays a substantial role in nuclear medicine as well as in monitoring nuclear waste and its deposit. Coded Aperture Imaging (CAI) has been proposed as an alternative to parallel or pinhole collimators, but requires image reconstruction as an extra step. Multiple reconstruction methods with varying run time and computational complexity have been proposed. Yet, no quantitative comparison between the different reconstruction methods has been carried out so far. This paper focuses on a comparison based on three sets of hot-rod phantom images captured with an experimental γ-camera consisting of a Tungsten-based MURA mask with a 2 mm thick 256 × 256 pixelated CdTe semiconductor detector coupled to a Timepix © readout circuit. Analytical reconstruction methods, MURA Decoding, Wiener Filter and a convolutional Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization (MLEM) algorithm were compared to data-driven Convolutional Encoder-Decoder (CED) approaches. The comparison is based on the contrast-to-noise ratio as it has been previously used to assess reconstruction quality. For the given set-up, MURA Decoding, the most commonly used CAI reconstruction method, provides robust reconstructions despite the assumption of a linear model. For single image reconstruction, however, MLEM performed best of all analytical reconstruction methods, but took on average 45 times longer than MURA Decoding. The fastest reconstruction method is the Wiener Filter with a run time 4.3 times faster compared to MURA Decoding and a mediocre quality. The CED with a specifically tailored training set was able to succeed the most commonly used MURA decoding on average by a factor between 1.37 and 2.60 and an equal run time.