Detection of simulated lung nodules with computed radiography: Effects of nodule size, local optical density, global object thickness, and exposure

Academic Radiology

Volumn 3, Issue 9, 1996, Pages 735-741

  Kimme Smith, Carolyn ^a   Hart, Eric M ^a   Goldin, Jonathan G ^a   Johnson, Timothy D ^a   Terwilliger, Robert ^a   Aberle, Denise R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed radiography; Exposure; Image quality; Lung nodule

Indexed keywords

METHACRYLIC ACID METHYL ESTER;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BODY CONSTITUTION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAPHRAGM; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEART; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LUNG COIN LESION; OBSERVER VARIATION; OPTICS; PATHOLOGY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THORAX;

ADULT; ARTIFACTS; BODY CONSTITUTION; COIN LESION, PULMONARY; DIAPHRAGM; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEART; HUMANS; METHYLMETHACRYLATE; METHYLMETHACRYLATES; OBSERVER VARIATION; OPTICS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THORAX; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 0030225741     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80412-0     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Lee KR, Siegel EL, Templeton AW, Dwyer SJ III, Murphey MD, Wetzel LH. State-of-the-art digital radiography. RadioGraphics 1991;11:1013-1025.
2. Kimme-Smith C, Aberle DR, Sayre JW, et al. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom. AJR 1995;165:269-273.
3. Dobbins JT, Rice JJ, Beam CA, Ravin CE. Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography. Radiology 1992;183:179-187.
4. Schaefer CM, Greene RE, Oestmann JW, et al. Improved control of image optical density with low dose digital and conventional radiography in bed-side imaging. Radiology 1989;173:713-716.
5. Chotas HG, Ravin CE. Digital radiography with photostimulable storage phosphors: control of detector latitude in chest imaging. Invest Radiol 1992;27:822-828.
6. Sorenson JA, Mitchell CR, Armstrong JD, et al. Effects of improved contrast on lung-nodule detection: a clinical ROC study. Invest Radiol 1987; 22:772-780.
7. Chakraborty DP, Breatnach ES, Yester MV, Soto B, Barnes GT, Fraser RG. Digital and conventional chest imaging: a modified ROC study of observer performance using simulated nodules. Radiology 1986;158:35-39.
8. Austin JHM, Romney BM, Goldsmith LS. Missed bronchogenic carcinoma: radiographic findings in 27 patients with a potentially resectable lesion evident in retrospect. Radiology 1992;182:115-122.
9. Kundel HL, Reves G. Lesion conspicuity, structured noise, and film reader error. AJR 1976;126:1233-1238.
10. White DR, Martin RJ, Parlison R. Epoxy resin based tissue substitutes. Br J Radiol 1977;50:814-821.
11. Burgess AE. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. Med Phys 1995; 22:643-655.
12. Dixon WJ, Massey FJ Jr. Introduction to statistical analysis, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.
13. Meter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH. Applied linear statistical models, 3rd ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin Publishing, 1990.
14. Hedge LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985.
15. Niklason LT, Chan HP, Cascade PN, Chang CL, Chee P, Mathews JF. Portable chest imaging: comparison of storage phosphor digital, asymmetric screen-film, and conventional screen-film systems. Radiology 1993;186:387-393.