Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 12, 2026

Construction of a Preclinical Multimodality Phantom Using Tissue-mimicking Materials for Quality Assurance in Tumor Size Measurement
Published on: July 29, 2013
Evaluation of Low-Contrast Detectability of Iterative Reconstruction across Multiple Institutions, CT Scanner
Ganesh Saiprasad1, James Filliben1, Adele Peskin1
1From the Software and Systems Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway St, Boulder, CO 80305 (G.S., J.F., A.P., A.D.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md (E. Siegel, J.C., C.T., Z.Y.); Departments of Medical Physics (O.C.) and Radiology (E. Samei), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; and Department of Radiology-Research, University of Arizona School of Medicine, Tucson, Ariz (E.K.).
Purpose:
To compare image resolution from iterative reconstruction with resolution from filtered back projection for low-contrast objects on phantom computed tomographic (CT) images across vendors and exposure levels.
Materials And Methods:
Randomized repeat scans of an American College of Radiology CT accreditation phantom (module 2, low contrast) were performed for multiple radiation exposures, vendors, and vendor iterative reconstruction algorithms. Eleven volunteers were presented with 900 images by using a custom-designed graphical user interface to perform a task created specifically for this reader study. Results were analyzed by using statistical graphics and analysis of variance.
Results:
Across three vendors (blinded as A, B, and C) and across three exposure levels, the mean correct classification rate was higher for iterative reconstruction than filtered back projection (P < .01): 87.4% iterative reconstruction and 81.3% filtered back projection at 20 mGy, 70.3% iterative reconstruction and 63.9% filtered back projection at 12 mGy, and 61.0% iterative reconstruction and 56.4% filtered back projection at 7.2 mGy. There was a significant difference in mean correct classification rate between vendor B and the other two vendors. Across all exposure levels, images obtained by using vendor B's scanner outperformed the other vendors, with a mean correct classification rate of 74.4%, while the mean correct classification rate for vendors A and C was 68.1% and 68.3%, respectively. Across all readers, the mean correct classification rate for iterative reconstruction (73.0%) was higher compared with the mean correct classification rate for filtered back projection (67.0%).
Conclusion:
The potential exists to reduce radiation dose without compromising low-contrast detectability by using iterative reconstruction instead of filtered back projection. There is substantial variability across vendor reconstruction algorithms.
Related Concept Videos
Radiological Investigation I: X-ray and CT
Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
The technique was invented in the 1970s and is based on the principle that as X-rays pass through the body, they are absorbed or reflected at different levels. In the technique, a patient lies on a motorized platform while a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scanner rotates...
Imaging Studies I: CT and MRI
Description of the Procedures
Computed Tomography (CT) scan:
Computed Tomography (CT) scans use X-ray technology to generate detailed images of bones, organs, and tissues. During the scan, the patient lies on a moving table...
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System V: CT
X-ray Imaging

