Chest radiography: Comparison of high-resolution digital displays with conventional and digital film

Radiology

Volumn 176, Issue 3, 1990, Pages 771-776

  Cox, Glendon G ^a   Cook, Larry T ^a   McMillan, John H ^a   Rosenthal, Stanton J ^a   Dwyer III, Samuel J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Diagnostic radiology, observer performance; Radiography, comparative studies; Radiography, computer assisted; Radiography, digital; Thorax, radiography, 60.11, 60.1215

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; LUNG DISEASES; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; ROC CURVE;

EID: 0025144117     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.176.3.2389035     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Chakraborty DP, Breatnach ES, Yester MV, Soto B, Barnes GT, Frazer RG. Digital and conventional chest imaging: a modified ROC study of observer performance using simulated nodules. Radiology 1986; 158:35-39.
2. Foley WD, Wilson CR, Keyes CS, et al. The effect of varying spatial resolution on the detectability of diffuse pulmonary nodules: assessment with digitized conventional radiographs. Radiology 1983; 141:25-31.
3. Goodman LR, Foley WD, Wilson CR, Rimm AA, Lawson TL. Digital and conventional chest images: observer performance with film digital radiography system. Radiology 1986; 158:27-33.
4. Lams PM, Cocklin ML. Spatial resolution requirements for digital chest radiographs: an ROC study of observer performance in selected cases. Radiology 1986; 158:11-19.
5. MacMahon H, Vyborny CJ, Metz CE, Doi K, Sabeti V, Solomon SL. Digital radiography of subtle pulmonary abnormalities: an ROC study of the effect of pixel size on observer performance. Radiology 1986; 158:21-26.
6. Hayrapetian A, Aberle DR, Huang HK, et al. Comparison of 2048-line digital display formats in conventional radiographs: an ROC study. AJR 1989; 152:1113-1118.
7. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiology imaging. Invest Radiol 1986; 21:720-733.
8. Rockette HE, Gur D, Cooperstein LA, et al. Effect of two rating formats in multi-disease ROC study of chest images. Invest Radiol 1990; 25:225-229.
9. Metz CE, Wang P-L, Kronman HB. A new approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. In: Deconinck F, ed. Information processing in medical imaging. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984; 431-445.
10. Miller I, Freund JE. Probability and statistics for engineers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965; 166.
11. Widoff B, Aberle DR, Brown K, et al. Hard copy versus soft copy display of 2,000 digital chest images: ROC study with simulated lung nodules (abstr). Radiology 1989; 173(P):401.
12. Frank MS, Jost RG, Blaine GJ, Moore SM, Whitman RA, Hagge R. Interpretation of mobile chest radiographs from a high-resolution CRT display (abstr). Radiology 1989; 173(P):401.
13. Habicht JP. Assessing diagnostic technologies (abstr). Science 1980; 207:1414.
14. Hanley JA. Receiver operating character-istic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. CRC Rev Diagn Imaging 1989; 29:307-335.
15. Slasky BS, Gur D, Good WF, et al. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of chest image interpretation with conventional, laser-printed, and high-resolution workstation images. Radiology 1990; 174:775-780.