[Rtk-users] ADMMTVReconstruction
Cyril Mory
cyril.mory at creatis.insa-lyon.fr
Thu Dec 18 05:13:15 EST 2014
Hi Howard,
I've taken a look at your data.
You can apply tv denoising on the out.mha volume and obtain a
significantly lower level of noise without blurring structures by using
the following command :
rtktotalvariationdenoising -i out.mha -g 0.001 -o
tvdenoised/gamma0.001.mha -n 100
I was unable to obtain good results with iterative reconstruction from
the projection data you sent, though. I think the main reason for this
is that your projections have much-higher-than-zero attenuation in air.
Your calculation of i0 when converting from intensity to attenuation is
probably not good enough. Try to correct for this effect first. Then you
can start performing SART and Conjugate Gradient reconstructions on your
data, and once you get these right, play with ADMM.
You might need to remove the table from the projections to be able to
restrict the reconstruction volume strictly to the patient, and speed up
the computations. We can provide help for that too.
Best regards,
Cyril
On 12/17/2014 05:02 PM, Howard wrote:
> Hi Cyril,
> I've sent you two files via wetransfer.com <http://wetransfer.com>:
> one is the sparse projection set with geometry file and the other is
> the fdk reconstructed image based on full projection set. Please let
> me know if you have trouble receiving them.
> Thanks very much for looking into this.
> -Howard
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Cyril Mory
> <cyril.mory at creatis.insa-lyon.fr
> <mailto:cyril.mory at creatis.insa-lyon.fr>> wrote:
>
> Hi Howard,
>
> Thanks for the detailed feedback.
> The image getting blurry is typically due to a too high gamma.
> Depending on you data, gamma can have to be set to a very small
> value (I use 0.007 in some reconstructions on clinical data). Can
> you send over your volume reconstructed from full projection data,
> and I'll have a quick look ?
>
> There is a lot of instinct in the setting of the parameters. With
> time, one gets used to finding a correct set of parameters without
> really knowing how. I can also try to reconstruct from your cbct
> data if you send me the projections and the geometry.
>
> Best regards,
> Cyril
>
>
> On 12/17/2014 03:49 PM, Howard wrote:
>> Hi Cyril,
>> Thanks very much for your detailed and nice description on how to
>> use the admmtv reconstruction. I followed your suggestions and
>> re-ran reconstructions using admmtotalvariation and admmwavelets
>> with cbct projection data from a thoracic patient.
>> I am reporting what I found and hope these will give you
>> information for further improvement.
>> 1. I repeated admmtotalvariation with 30 iterations. No
>> improvement was observed. As a matter of fact, the reconstructed
>> image is getting a lot noiser compared to that using 3
>> iterations. The contrast is getting worse as well. I tried to
>> play around with window & level in case I was fooled but
>> apparently more iterations gave worse results.
>> 2. Similarly I ran 30 iterations using admmwavelets. Slightly
>> better reconstruction compared with total variation.
>> 3. Then I went ahead to test if TV benefits us anything using the
>> tvdenoising application on the fdk-reconstructed
>> image reconstructed from full projection set. I found that the
>> more iterations, the more blurry the image became. For example,
>> with 50 iterations the contrast on the denoised image is very low
>> so that the vertebrae and surrounding soft tissue are hardly
>> distinguishable. Changing gamma's at 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 10 did not
>> seem to make a difference on the image. With 5 iterations the
>> denoising seems to work fairly well. Again, changing gamma's
>> didn't make a difference.
>> I hope I didn't misused the totalvariationdenoising application.
>> The command I executed was: rtktotalvariationdenoising -i out.mha
>> -o out_denoising_n50_gamma05 --gamma 0.5 -n 50
>> In summary, tdmmwavelets seems perform better than
>> tdmmtotalvariation but neither gave satisfactory results. No sure
>> what we can infer from the TV denoising study. I could send my
>> study to you if there is a need. Please let me know what tests I
>> could run. Further help on improvement is definitely welcome and
>> appreciated.
>> -Howard
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Cyril Mory
>> <cyril.mory at creatis.insa-lyon.fr
>> <mailto:cyril.mory at creatis.insa-lyon.fr>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Howard,
>>
>> Good to hear that you're using RTK :)
>> I'll try to answer all your questions, and give you some advice:
>> - In general, you can expect some improvement over rtkfdk,
>> but not a huge one
>> - You can find the calculations in my PhD thesis
>> https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00985728 (in English.
>> Only the introduction is in French)
>> - Adjusting the parameters is, in itself, a research topic
>> (sorry !). Alpha controls the amount of regularization and
>> only that (the higher, the more regularization). Beta,
>> theoretically, should only change the convergence speed,
>> provided you do an infinite number of iterations (I know it
>> doesn't help, sorry again !). In practice, beta is ubiquitous
>> and appears everywhere in the calculations, therefore it is
>> hard to predict what effect an increase/decrease of beta will
>> give on the images. I would keep it as is, and play on alpha
>> - 3 iterations is way too little. I typically used 30
>> iterations. Using the CUDA forward and back projectors helped
>> a lot maintain the computation time manageable
>> - The quality of the results depends a lot on the nature of
>> the image you are trying to reconstruct. In a nutshell, the
>> algorithm assumes that the image you are reconstructing has a
>> certain form of regularity, and discards the potential
>> solutions that do not have it. This assumption partly
>> compensates for the lack of data. ADMM TV assumes that the
>> image you are reconstructing is piecewise constant, i.e. has
>> large uniform areas separated by sharp borders. If your image
>> is a phantom, it should give good results. If it is a real
>> patient, you should probably change to another algorithm that
>> assumes another form of regularity in the images (try
>> rtkadmmwavelets)
>> - You can find out whether you typical images can benefit
>> from TV regularization by reconstructing from all projections
>> with rtkfdk, then applying rtktotalvariationdenoising on the
>> reconstructed volume (try 50 iterations and adjust the gamma
>> parameter: high gamma means high regularization). If this
>> denoising implies an unacceptable loss of quality, stay away
>> from TV for these images, and try wavelets
>>
>> I hope this helps
>>
>> Looking forward to reading you again,
>> Cyril
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/2014 06:42 PM, Howard wrote:
>>> I am testing the ADMM total variation reconstruction with
>>> sparse data sample. I could reconstruct but the results were
>>> not as good as expected. In other words, it didn't show much
>>> improvement compared to fdk reconstruction using the same
>>> sparse projection data.
>>> The parameters I used in ADMMTV were the following:
>>> --spacing 2,2,2 --dimension 250,100,250 --alpha 1 --beta
>>> 1000 -n 3
>>> while the fdk reconstruction parameters are:
>>> --spacing 2,2,2 --dimension 250,100,250 --pad 0.1 --hann 0.5
>>> The dimensions were chosen to include the entire anatomy. 72
>>> projections were selected out of 646 projections for a 360
>>> degree scan for both calculations.
>>> What parameters and how can I adjust (like alpha, beta, or
>>> iterations?) to improve the ADMMTV reconstruction? There is
>>> not much description of this application from the wiki page.
>>> Thanks,
>>> -howard
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rtk-users mailing list
>>> Rtk-users at public.kitware.com <mailto:Rtk-users at public.kitware.com>
>>> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Cyril Mory, Post-doc
>> CREATIS
>> Leon Berard cancer treatment center
>> 28 rue Laënnec
>> 69373 Lyon cedex 08 FRANCE
>>
>> Mobile:+33 6 69 46 73 79 <tel:%2B33%206%2069%2046%2073%2079>
>>
>
> --
> --
> Cyril Mory, Post-doc
> CREATIS
> Leon Berard cancer treatment center
> 28 rue Laënnec
> 69373 Lyon cedex 08 FRANCE
>
> Mobile:+33 6 69 46 73 79 <tel:%2B33%206%2069%2046%2073%2079>
>
--
--
Cyril Mory, Post-doc
CREATIS
Leon Berard cancer treatment center
28 rue Laënnec
69373 Lyon cedex 08 FRANCE
Mobile: +33 6 69 46 73 79
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20141218/12dd9113/attachment-0009.html>
More information about the Rtk-users
mailing list