Noise Suppression of Computed Tomography (CT) Images Using Residual Encoder-Decoder Convolutional Neural Network (RED-CNN)

H. B. Cokrokusumo, I. Hariyati, L. E. Lubis, P. Prajitno, D. S. Soejoko


In this study, an in-house residual encoder-decoder convolutional neural network (RED-CNN)-based algorithm was composed and trained using images of cylindrical polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) phantom with a diameter of 26 cm at different simulated noise levels. The model was tested on 21 × 26 cm elliptical PMMA computed tomography (CT) phantom images with simulated noise to evaluate its denoising capability using signal to noise ratio (SNR), comparative peak signal-to-noise ratio (cPSNR), structural similarity (SSIM) index, modulation transfer function frequencies (MTF 10 %) and noise power spectra (NPS) values as parameters. Evaluation of a possible decrease of image quality was also performed by testing the model using homogenous water phantom and wire phantom images acquired using different mAs values. Results show that the model was able to consistently increase SNR, cPSNR, SSIM values, and decrease the integral noise power spectra (NPS). However, the noise level on either training or testing data affects the model’s final denoising performance. The lower noise level on testing data images tends to result in over-smoothed images, as indicated by the shift of the NPS curves. In contrast, higher simulated noise level tends to result in less satisfactory denoising performance, as indicated by lower SNR, cPSNR, and SSIM values. Meanwhile, the higher noise level on training data images tends to produce denoised images with reduced sharpness, as indicated by the decrease of the MTF 10 % values. Further studies are required to better understand the character of RED-CNN for CT noise suppression regarding the optimum parameters for best results.


Deep learning; Encoder-decoder network; Fully convolutional network; Image denoising; Low-dose CT; Residual network

Full Text:



J. T. Bushberg, J. A. Seibert, E. M. Leidholdt et al., The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging, 3rd ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia (2012) 852.

D. R. Dance, S. Christofides, A. D. A. Maidment et al., Diagnostic Radiology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (2014) 500.

H. Chen, Y. Zhang, W. Zhang et al., Biomed. Opt. Express 8 (2017) 679.

A. Horé and D. Ziou, Int. Conf. Pattern Recognit. (2010) 2366.

Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh et al., IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13 (2004) 600.

S. N. Friedman, G. S. K. Fung, J. H. Siewerdsen et al., Med. Phys. 40 (2013) 1.

B. Kim, M. Han, H. Shim et al., Med. Phys. 46 (2019) 3906.

A. R. Goode, C. Snyder, A. Snyder et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 20 (2019) 172.

J. M. Boone and J. A. Seibert, Med. Phys. 24 (1997) 1661.

J. Ma, Z. Liang, Y. Fan et al., Med. Phys. 39 (2012) 4051.

D. Zeng, J. Huang, Z. Bian et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 62 (2015) 2226.

X. Glorot, A. Bordes and Y. Bengio, Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Stat. 15 (2011) 315.

C. Wang, Z. Zhao, Q. Ren et al., Entropy 21 (2019) 1.

K. Rossmann, Radiol. 93 (1969) 257.

R. Kohavi, Int. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell. 14 (1995) 1137.


Copyright (c) 2022 Atom Indonesia

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.