Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Nov 27.
Published in final edited form as: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Jun 30;53(14):3921–3942. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/14/013

Table 1.

Comparison of computation costs for different reconstruction methods when a single image reconstruction is performed.

E < 10%
E < 5%
E < 1%
F/B projection approach Algorithm Iteration cost (# iters) Total recon. time Iteration cost (# iters) Total recon. time Iteration cost (# iters) Total recon. time
Direct calculation approach with precomputed system matrix (precomput. time: 12 708 s) GPM-U 359 s (216) 13068 s 599 s (378) 13307 s 1444 s (879) 14152 s
GPM-N 53 s (32) 12761 s 77 s (46) 12786 s 129 s (79) 12838 s
GPM-EN 54 s (29) 12762 s 71 s (42) 12780 s 121 s (73) 12830 s
CG 563 s (216) 13272 s 941 s (378) 13650 s 2376 s (878) 15084 s
PCG-N 58 s (35) 12766 s 88 s (52) 12796 s 157 s (93) 12865 s
PCG-EN 59 s (33) 12767 s 81 s (48) 12789 s 146s (86) 12854 s
PCG-EM 81 s (45) 12789 s 111 s (66) 12819 s 268 s (151) 12976 s
CD 37 s (20) 12746 s 46 s (26) 12754 s 64 s (38) 12773 s
OS-SPS-2 48 s (36) 12756 s 80 s (61) 12788 s 178 s (136) 12887 s
OS-SPS-5 20 s (15) 12729 s 35 s (26) 12743 s
OS-SPS-10 11 s (8) 12719 s 20 s (15) 12728 s
On-the-fly approach (precomput. time: 110 s) GPM-U 4877 s (216) 4987 s 8523 s (378) 8633 s 16152 s (879) 16262 s
GPM-EN 688 s (29) 798 s 981 s (42) 1091 s 1614 s (73) 1724 s
CG 6531 s (216) 6641 s 11400 s (378) 11509 s 21557 s (878) 21666s
PCG-EN 735 s (33) 845 s 1035 s (48) 1145 s 1797 s (86) 1907 s
PCG-EM 1033 s (45) 1143 s 1480 s (66) 1590 s 3291 s (151) 3401 s