The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2016
DOI: 10.1109/tns.2016.2577045
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computed Tomography Sinogram Inpainting With Compound Prior Modelling Both Sinogram and Image Sparsity

Abstract: Abstract-The presence of metal objects remains a challenge in x-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging. Sinograms passing through metals, called metal trace, usually provide uncorrected information and are considered missing in CT image reconstruction. The sparse prior of an image in some appropriate transform domains, defined implicit sparsity, is often used in sinogram inpainting methods for metal trace recovery. However, conventional inpainting methods only employ the implicit sparsity of a sinogram and ofte… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…wherein J(·) represents data fidelity, ψ(·) is a functional regularization operator, S represents the sparse transforming coefficient set, and λ is a regularization parameter to optimize the computing. Due to the sparse view conditions for the low-dosed reconstruction, the regularized algorithms have trade-offs between image quality, computational complexity, and diagnostic ability, as mentioned in the literature reviews and studies [23][24][25][26][27][28]. However, excessively generating noise and significantly reducing the diagnostic values of the reconstructed images, sparsity, and low-dose exposure per projection are highly desirable in the recent studies.…”
Section: Equipment Configuration Of the Duplicated Simulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…wherein J(·) represents data fidelity, ψ(·) is a functional regularization operator, S represents the sparse transforming coefficient set, and λ is a regularization parameter to optimize the computing. Due to the sparse view conditions for the low-dosed reconstruction, the regularized algorithms have trade-offs between image quality, computational complexity, and diagnostic ability, as mentioned in the literature reviews and studies [23][24][25][26][27][28]. However, excessively generating noise and significantly reducing the diagnostic values of the reconstructed images, sparsity, and low-dose exposure per projection are highly desirable in the recent studies.…”
Section: Equipment Configuration Of the Duplicated Simulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another study by Zhu et al (2013) applied compressed sensing (CS) algorithms when violating the sampling theory in the discrete wavelet or discrete gradient transforms by using the total-variation-based (TV-) CS algorithm to suppress the streaking artifacts significantly without any image quality compromises [24]. Zhang et al (2016) used the sinogram-based inpainting technique in metal artifact reducing (MAR) [25]. In a different study Zhang et al (2015) [26] used the combination of compressed sensing and dictionary learning to regularize parameter determination via sparse constraint of the TV minimization to reduce the computational cost.…”
Section: Equipment Configuration Of the Duplicated Simulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the state-of-the-art low-dose CT techniques, many traditional methods have been proposed to improve the quality of low-dose CT images, including (a) sinogram domain filtration methods (3)(4)(5)(6); (b) iterative reconstruction methods, such as the total variation (TV) method and its variants (7)(8)(9)(10); dictionary learning (DL) (11)(12)(13)(14); and (c) image postprocessing methods, such as the nonlocal-mean (NLM) method (15) and the block-matching 3D (BM3D) algorithm (16). However, these methods are not ideal as they were all developed primarily for image denoising.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These efforts can be divided into two categories. First is to compensate for the missing sinogram by extrapolation [29]- [31], and the other is to combine additional a priori information in the reconstruction process [32], [33]. A priori information about the unknown object, such as surface information, density range or the previous image, is helpful for artifact suppression and edge retention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%