Advertisement

Removing ring artifacts in CBCT images via generative adversarial networks with unidirectional relative total variation loss

  • Zheng Wang
  • Jianwu LiEmail author
  • Mogendi Enoh
Original Article
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is an important tool for clinical diagnosis and many industrial applications. However, ring artifacts usually appear in CBCT images, due to device responding inconsistence. This paper designs a generative adversarial network (GAN) to remove ring artifacts and meanwhile to retain important texture details in CBCT images. This method firstly transforms ring artifacts in Cartesian coordinates to stripe artifacts in polar coordinates, which is very helpful for removing ring artifacts. Then, we design a new loss function for GAN, including three parts: unidirectional relative total variation loss, perceptual loss and adversarial loss. Further, inspired by super-resolution generative adversarial networks, we use very deep residual networks for both generator and discriminator. Experimental results show that the proposed method is more effective for ring artifacts removal, compared to our baseline and some traditional methods.

Keywords

Cone beam computed tomography Ring artifacts Generative adversarial networks Super-resolution generative adversarial networks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61271374). The authors would like thank the anonymous reviews for their helpful suggestions which have led to great improvement on this paper, especially on the experiments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Fox EC, Nixon O, Agwani MS, Dykaar DR, Mantell TJ, Sabila RW (1998) High-speed linear CCD sensor with pinned photodiode photosite for low-lag and low-noise imaging. In: Solid state sensor arrays: development and applications II, vol 3301, pp 17–27, International Society for Optics and PhotonicsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seibert JA, Boone JM (2015) Flat-field correction technique for digital detectors. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol 3336, pp 348–354Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liang Lihong L H (2004) The corrected research of flat-panel detector imaging system. Acta Photonica Sin 33(10):1277–1280Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jiang XG, Zhang KZ, Li CG, Wang Y (2007) Extended applications of image flat-field correction method. Acta Photonica Sin 36(9):1587–1590Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tang X, Ning R, Yu R, Conover D (2001) Cone beam volume CT image artifacts caused by defective cells in X-ray flat panel imagers and the artifact removal using a wavelet-analysis-based algorithm. Med Phys 28(5):812–825Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kowalski G (1978) Suppression of ring artefacts in CT fan-beam scanners. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 25(5):1111–1116Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raven C (1998) Numerical removal of ring artifacts in microtomography. Rev Sci Instrum 69(8):2978–2980Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Münch B, Trtik P, Marone F, Stampanoni M (2009) Stripe and ring artifact removal with combined wavelet fourier filtering. Opt Express 17(10):8567–8591Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haibel A, Boin M (2006) Compensation of ring artefacts in synchrotron tomographic images. Opt Express 14(25):12071–12075Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashrafuzzaman ANM, Lee SY, Hasan MK (2011) A self-adaptive approach for the detection and correction of stripes in the sinogram: suppression of ring artifacts in CT imaging. Eurasip J Adv Signal Process 2011(1):1–13Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Titarenko S, Titarenko V, Kyrieleis A, Withers PJ, Carlo FD (2011) Suppression of ring artefacts when tomographing anisotropically attenuating samples. J Synchrotron Radiat 18(3):427–435Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miqueles EX, Rinkel J, O’Dowd F, Bermdez JSV (2014) Generalized Titarenko’s algorithm for ring artefacts reduction. J Synchrotron Radiat 21(6):1333–1346Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Titarenko V (2016) Analytical formula for two-dimensional ring artefact suppression. J Synchrotron Radiat 23(6):1447–1461Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohan KA, Venkatakrishnan SV, Drummy LF, Simmons J (2014) Model-based iterative reconstruction for synchrotron X-ray tomography. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, pp 6909–6913Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pierre P, Alessandro M (2015) Ring artifacts correction in compressed sensing tomographic reconstruction. J Synchrotron Radiat 22(Pt 5):1268–1278Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kyriakou Y, Prell D, Kalender WA (2009) Ring artifact correction for high-resolution micro CT. Phys Med Biol 54(17):N385Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prell D, Kyriakou YKalender W A (2009) Comparison of ring artifact correction methods for flat-detector CT. Phys Med Biol 54(12):3881Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen YW, Duan G, Fujita A, Hirooka K, Ueno Y (2009) Ring artifacts reduction in cone-beam CT images based on independent component analysis. In: Instrumentation and measurement technology conference, 2009. I2MTC ’09. IEEE, pp 1734–1737Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen YW, Duan G (2009) Independent component analysis based ring artifact reduction in cone-beam CT images. In: IEEE international conference on image processing, pp 4137–4140Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yan L, Wu T, Zhong S, Zhang Q (2016) A variation-based ring artifact correction method with sparse constraint for flat-detector CT. Phys Med Biol 61(3):1278Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sijbers J, Postnov A (2004) Reduction of ring artefacts in high resolution micro-CT reconstructions. Phys Med Biol 49(14):N247Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brun F, Kourousias G, Dreossi D, Mancini L (2009) An improved method for ring artifacts removing in reconstructed tomographic images. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wei Z, Wiebe S, Chapman D (2013) Ring artifacts removal from synchrotron CT image slices. J Instrum 8(6):C06006Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bouali M, Ladjal S (2011) Toward optimal destriping of modis data using a unidirectional variational model. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 49(8):2924–2935Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu L, Yan Q, Xia Y, Jia J (2012) Structure extraction from texture via relative total variation. ACM Trans Graph 31(6):139Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Green M, Marom EM, Kiryati N, Konen E, Mayer A (2016) Efficient low-dose CT denoising by locally-consistent non-local means (LC-NLM). In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pp 423–431, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu Y, Zhang Y (2018) Low-dose CT restoration via stacked sparse denoising autoencoders. Neurocomputing 284:80–89Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ronneberger O (2017) Invited talk: U-Net convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2017, p 3, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deng Y, Bao F, Deng X, Wang R, Dai Q (2016) Deep and structured robust information theoretic learning for image analysis. IEEE Trans Image Process 25:4209–4221MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2016) Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 770–778Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deng Y, Ren Z, Kong Y, Bao F, Dai Q (2017) A hierarchical fused fuzzy deep neural network for data classification. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(4):1006–1012Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ledig C, Theis L, Huszar F, Caballero J, Cunningham A, Acosta A, Aitken A, Tejani A, Totz J, Wang Z et al (2017) Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network, In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 4681–4690Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gulrajani I, Ahmed F, Arjovsky M, Dumoulin V, Courville AC (2017) Improved training of Wasserstein GANs. In: International conference on neural information processing systems, pp 5769–5779Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ji Y, Zhang H, Wu QJ (2018) Saliency detection via conditional adversarial image-to-image network. Neurocomputing 316:357–368Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang H, Sun Y, Liu L, Wang X, Li L, Liu W (2018) ClothingOut: a category-supervised GAN model for clothing segmentation and retrieval. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3691-y
  36. 36.
    Brock A, Lim T, Ritchie JM, Weston N (2016) Neural photo editing with introspective adversarial networks. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1609.07093
  37. 37.
    Deng Y, Shen Y, Jin H (2017) Disguise adversarial networks for click-through rate prediction. In: Proceedings of the 26th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI Press, pp 1589-1595Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Deng Y, Chen KW, Shen Y, Jin H (2018) Adversarial active learning for sequences labeling and generation. In: Proceedings of the twenty-seventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 4012–4018, International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Simonyan K, Zisserman A (2014) Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556
  40. 40.
    Yang Q, Yan P, Zhang Y, Yu H, Shi Y, Mou X, Kalra MK, Zhang Y, Sun L, Wang G (2017) Low dose CT image denoising using a generative adversarial network with Wasserstein distance and perceptual loss. IEEE Trans Med Imaging PP(99):1–1Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhang H, Sindagi V, Patel VM (2017) Image de-raining using a conditional generative adversarial network. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1701.05957
  42. 42.
    Kupyn O, Budzan V, Mykhailych M, Mishkin D, Matas J (2017) Deblurgan: blind motion deblurring using conditional adversarial networks. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07064
  43. 43.
    Goodfellow IJ, Pouget-Abadie J, Mirza M, Xu B, Warde-Farley D, Ozair S, Courville A, Bengio Y (2014) Generative adversarial nets. In: International conference on neural information processing systems, pp 2672–2680Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Creswell A, White T, Dumoulin V, Kai A, Sengupta B, Bharath AA (2018) Generative adversarial networks: an overview. IEEE Sig Process Mag 35(1):53–65Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li J, J-h Cheng, J-y Shi, Huang F (2012) Brief introduction of back propagation (BP) neural network algorithm and its improvement. In: Jin D, Lin S (eds) Advances in computer science and information engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 553–558Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gribbon KT, Bailey DG (2004) A novel approach to real-time bilinear interpolation. In: IEEE international conference on field-programmable technology, pp 126–131Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Huo Q, Li J, Lu Y (2016) Removing ring artefacts in CT images via unidirectional relative variation model. Electron Lett 52(22):1838–1839Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dong C, Loy CC, He K, Tang X (2016) Image super-resolution using deep convolutional networks. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 38(2):295–307Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shi W, Caballero J, Huszár F, Totz J, Aitken AP, Bishop R, Rueckert D, Wang Z (2016) Real-time single image and video super-resolution using an efficient sub-pixel convolutional neural network. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 1874–1883Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Johnson J, Alahi A, Li FF (2016) Perceptual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution. In: European conference on computer vision, pp 694–711Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bruna J, Sprechmann P, LeCun Y (2015) Super-resolution with deep convolutional sufficient statistics. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05666
  52. 52.
    Kingma DP, Ba J (2014) Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beijing Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Technology, School of Computer Science and TechnologyBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations