(1) Background: To evaluate the effects of an AI-based denoising post-processing software solution in low-dose whole-body computer tomography (WBCT) stagings; (2) Methods: From 1 January 2019 to 1 January 2021, we retrospectively included biometrically matching melanoma patients with clinically indicated WBCT staging from two scanners. The scans were reconstructed using weighted filtered back-projection (wFBP) and Advanced Modeled Iterative Reconstruction strength 2 (ADMIRE 2) at 100% and simulated 50%, 40%, and 30% radiation doses. Each dataset was post-processed using a novel denoising software solution. Five blinded radiologists independently scored subjective image quality twice with 6 weeks between readings. Inter-rater agreement and intra-rater reliability were determined with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). An adequately corrected mixed-effects analysis was used to compare objective and subjective image quality. Multiple linear regression measured the contribution of “Radiation Dose”, “Scanner”, “Mode”, “Rater”, and “Timepoint” to image quality. Consistent regions of interest (ROI) measured noise for objective image quality; (3) Results: With good–excellent inter-rater agreement and intra-rater reliability (Timepoint 1: ICC ≥ 0.82, 95% CI 0.74–0.88; Timepoint 2: ICC ≥ 0.86, 95% CI 0.80–0.91; Timepoint 1 vs. 2: ICC ≥ 0.84, 95% CI 0.78–0.90; all p ≤ 0.001), subjective image quality deteriorated significantly below 100% for wFBP and ADMIRE 2 but remained good–excellent for the post-processed images, regardless of input (p ≤ 0.002). In regression analysis, significant increases in subjective image quality were only observed for higher radiation doses (≥0.78, 95%CI 0.63–0.93; p < 0.001), as well as for the post-processed images (≥2.88, 95%CI 2.72–3.03, p < 0.001). All post-processed images had significantly lower image noise than their standard counterparts (p < 0.001), with no differences between the post-processed images themselves. (4) Conclusions: The investigated AI post-processing software solution produces diagnostic images as low as 30% of the initial radiation dose (3.13 ± 0.75 mSv), regardless of scanner type or reconstruction method. Therefore, it might help limit patient radiation exposure, especially in the setting of repeated whole-body staging examinations.

(1) This study evaluates the impact of an AI denoising algorithm on image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and radiological workflows in pediatric chest ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT). (2) Methods: 100 consecutive pediatric thorax ULDCT were included and reconstructed using weighted filtered back projection (wFBP), iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE 2), and AI denoising (PixelShine). Place-consistent noise measurements were used to compare objective image quality. Eight blinded readers independently rated the subjective image quality on a Likert scale (1 = worst to 5 = best). Each reader wrote a semiquantitative report to evaluate disease severity using a severity score with six common pathologies. The time to diagnosis was measured for each reader to compare the possible workflow benefits. Properly corrected mixed-effects analysis with post-hoc subgroup tests were used. Spearman’s correlation coefficient measured inter-reader agreement for the subjective image quality analysis and the severity score sheets. (3) Results: The highest noise was measured for wFBP, followed by ADMIRE 2, and PixelShine (76.9 ± 9.62 vs. 43.4 ± 4.45 vs. 34.8 ± 3.27 HU; each p < 0.001). The highest subjective image quality was measured for PixelShine, followed by ADMIRE 2, and wFBP (4 (4–5) vs. 3 (4–5) vs. 3 (2–4), each p < 0.001) with good inter-rater agreement (r ≥ 0.790; p ≤ 0.001). In diagnostic accuracy analysis, there was a good inter-rater agreement between the severity scores (r ≥ 0.764; p < 0.001) without significant differences between severity score items per reconstruction mode (F (5.71; 566) = 0.792; p = 0.570). The shortest time to diagnosis was measured for the PixelShine datasets, followed by ADMIRE 2, and wFBP (2.28 ± 1.56 vs. 2.45 ± 1.90 vs. 2.66 ± 2.31 min; F (1.000; 99.00) = 268.1; p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: AI denoising significantly improves image quality in pediatric thorax ULDCT without compromising the diagnostic confidence and reduces the time to diagnosis substantially.

(1) To investigate whether interventional cone-beam computed tomography (cbCT) could benefit from AI denoising, particularly with respect to patient body mass index (BMI); (2) From 1 January 2016 to 1 January 2022, 100 patients with liver-directed interventions and peri-procedural cbCT were included. The unenhanced mask run and the contrast-enhanced fill run of the cbCT were reconstructed using weighted filtered back projection. Additionally, each dataset was post-processed using a novel denoising software solution. Place-consistent regions of interest measured signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) per dataset. Corrected mixed-effects analysis with BMI subgroup analyses compared objective image quality. Multiple linear regression measured the contribution of “Radiation Dose”, “Body-Mass-Index”, and “Mode” to SNR. Two radiologists independently rated diagnostic confidence. Inter-rater agreement was measured using Spearman correlation (r); (3) SNR was significantly higher in the denoised datasets than in the regular datasets (p < 0.001). Furthermore, BMI subgroup analysis showed significant SNR deteriorations in the regular datasets for higher patient BMI (p < 0.001), but stable results for denoising (p > 0.999). In regression, only denoising contributed positively towards SNR (0.6191; 95%CI 0.6096 to 0.6286; p < 0.001). The denoised datasets received overall significantly higher diagnostic confidence grades (p = 0.010), with good inter-rater agreement (r ≥ 0.795, p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, diagnostic confidence deteriorated significantly for higher patient BMI (p < 0.001) in the regular datasets but was stable in the denoised datasets (p ≥ 0.103).; (4) AI denoising can significantly enhance image quality in interventional cone-beam CT and effectively mitigate diagnostic confidence deterioration for rising patient BMI.

No abstract