Publications

Detailed Information

Fully three-dimensional OSEM-based image reconstruction for Compton imaging using optimized ordering schemes

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorKim, Soo Mee-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Jae Sung-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Chun Sik-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Chan Hyeong-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Dong Soo-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Soo-Jin-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Myung Chul-
dc.date.accessioned2012-07-03T08:43:18Z-
dc.date.available2012-07-03T08:43:18Z-
dc.date.issued2010-09-07-
dc.identifier.citationPHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY; Vol.55 17; 5007-5027ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn0031-9155-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/78322-
dc.description.abstractAlthough the ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm does not converge to a true maximum likelihood solution, it is known to provide a good solution if the projections that constitute each subset are reasonably balanced. The Compton scattered data can be allocated to subsets using scattering angles (SA) or detected positions (DP) or a combination of the two (AP (angles and positions)). To construct balanced subsets, the data were first arranged using three ordering schemes: the random ordering scheme (ROS), the multilevel ordering scheme (MLS) and the weighted-distance ordering scheme (WDS). The arranged data were then split into J subsets. To compare the three ordering schemes, we calculated the coefficients of variation (CVs) of angular and positional differences between the arranged data and the percentage errors between mathematical phantoms and reconstructed images. All ordering schemes showed an order-of-magnitude acceleration over the standard EM, and their computation times were similar. The SA-based MLS and the DP-based WDS led to the best-balanced subsets (they provided the largest angular and positional differences for SA-and DP-based arrangements, respectively). The WDS exhibited minimum CVs for both the SA-and DP-based arrangements (the deviation in mean angular and positional differences between the ordered subsets was smallest). The combination of AP and WDS yielded the best results with the lowest percentage errors by providing larger and more uniform angular and positional differences for the SA and DP arrangements, and thus, is probably optimal Compton camera reconstruction using OSEM.ko_KR
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the Nuclear Research & Development Program of the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science &
Technology (MEST) (grant codes 2005-2004723, 2008-2003852).
ko_KR
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherIOP PUBLISHING LTDko_KR
dc.titleFully three-dimensional OSEM-based image reconstruction for Compton imaging using optimized ordering schemesko_KR
dc.typeArticleko_KR
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김수미-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이재성-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이춘식-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김찬형-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이명철-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이동수-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이수진-
dc.identifier.doi10.1088/0031-9155/55/17/009-
dc.citation.journaltitlePHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY-
dc.description.citedreferencePARK MJ, 2009, NUCL MED MOL IMAGING, V43, P443-
dc.description.citedreferenceHA WS, 2009, NUCL MED MOL IMAGING, V43, P459-
dc.description.citedreferenceSeo H, 2008, IEEE T NUCL SCI, V55, P2527, DOI 10.1109/TNS.2008.2000777-
dc.description.citedreferenceAn SH, 2007, NUCL INSTRUM METH A, V571, P251, DOI 10.1016/j.nima.2006.10.075-
dc.description.citedreferenceKim SM, 2007, NUCL INSTRUM METH A, V571, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.nima.2006.10.076-
dc.description.citedreferenceLee JH, 2006, J KOREAN PHYS SOC, V49, P97-
dc.description.citedreferenceQI J, 2006, PHYS MED BIOL, V51, P541-
dc.description.citedreferenceLee JH, 2005, NUCL PHYS A, V758, p150C, DOI 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.031-
dc.description.citedreferenceSmith B, 2005, J OPT SOC AM A, V22, P445-
dc.description.citedreferenceHirasawa M, 2003, PHYS MED BIOL, V48, P1009, DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/48/8/304-
dc.description.citedreferenceTomitani T, 2002, PHYS MED BIOL, V47, P2129, DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/47/12/309-
dc.description.citedreferenceKRAGH T, 2002, THESIS U MICHIGAN AN-
dc.description.citedreferenceYang YF, 2001, IEEE T NUCL SCI, V48, P656, DOI 10.1109/23.940142-
dc.description.citedreferenceParra LC, 2000, IEEE T NUCL SCI, V47, P1543, DOI 10.1109/23.873014-
dc.description.citedreferenceSauve AC, 1999, IEEE T NUCL SCI, V46, P2075, DOI 10.1109/23.819285-
dc.description.citedreferenceLeBlanc JW, 1999, IEEE T NUCL SCI, V46, P201, DOI 10.1109/23.775514-
dc.description.citedreferenceHua CH, 1999, IEEE T NUCL SCI, V46, P587, DOI 10.1109/23.775584-
dc.description.citedreferenceBasko R, 1998, PHYS MED BIOL, V43, P887, DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/43/4/016-
dc.description.citedreferenceMueller K, 1997, IEEE T MED IMAGING, V16, P223, DOI 10.1109/42.563668-
dc.description.citedreferenceWEINBERG S, 1995, QUANTUM THEORY FIELD, V1-
dc.description.citedreferenceHUDSON HM, 1994, IEEE T MED IMAGING, V13, P601, DOI 10.1109/42.363108-
dc.description.citedreferenceGUAN HQ, 1994, PHYS MED BIOL, V39, P2005, DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/39/11/013-
dc.description.citedreferenceHEBERT T, 1990, J OPT SOC AM A, V7, P1305-
dc.description.citedreferenceSIDDON RL, 1985, MED PHYS, V12, P252-
dc.description.citedreferenceLANGE K, 1984, J COMPUT ASSIST TOMO, V8, P306-
dc.description.citedreferenceSHEPP LA, 1982, IEEE T MED IMAGING, V1, P113-
dc.description.tc2-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share