This approach demonstrates enhanced imaging quality in sparse-view CT, indicating improved detail preservation and artifact reduction.
Sparse-view computed tomography (CT) iterative reconstruction suffers from severe image quality degradation, including reduced resolution and pronounced artifacts, due to insufficient projection data. As a result, it fails to meet the requirements for high-fidelity imaging in industrial and medical applications. To address this issue, this paper proposes a sparse-view CT iterative reconstruction algorithm that integrates multiscale nonlocal total variation and adaptive bilateral filtering (MA-SART). The proposed method extends the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) by incorporating a combined regularization strategy based on multiscale nonlocal total variation (MNLTV) and adaptive bilateral filtering (ABF) within the iterative reconstruction loop. This synergistic framework aims to achieve a globally optimal reconstruction while preserving fine details and effectively suppressing artifacts and noise. Specifically, the MNLTV term captures nonlocal similarities across multiple scales, thereby reducing gradient-related artifacts at the global structural level. In addition, the proposed ABF dynamically adjusts its spatial and intensity standard deviations and employs a gradient consistency constraint to modulate the range kernel weights, which suppresses artifacts near strong edges while preserving edge structures. The performance of MA-SART was validated using the Shepp–Logan phantom and wood transverse section datasets. Qualitative results show that images reconstructed using MA-SART closely resemble the reference images, particularly in regions with complex textures under magnification. For quantitative evaluation, the root mean square error (RMSE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and structural similarity index measure (SSIM) were used to compare MA-SART with ART, SART, SART-GSRRGF, and POCS-TVM. The experimental results demonstrate that MA-SART produces reconstructions that are closer to the original images and outperform the comparison methods in preserving fine structural details.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: