Influence of CT image size and format on accuracy of lung nodule detection

Radiology

Volumn 206, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 617-622

  Seltzer, Steven E ^a,e   Judy, Philip F ^a,e   Feldman, Uri ^a,c   Scarff, Larry ^b,d,f   Jacobson, Francine L ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b POLAROID CORPORATION   (United States)

^c Monitor United States   (United States)

^d Digital Imaging Solutions   (United States)

^e Polaroid Medical Imaging Systems

^f NONE

Author keywords

Diagnostic radiology, observer performance; Images, display; Images, interpretation; Lung, nodule; Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC)

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; COST CONTROL; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LUNG NODULE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0031884062     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494475     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Fisher PD, Brauer GW. Impact of image size on effectiveness of digital imaging systems. J Digit Imaging 1989; 2:39-41.
2. Seltzer SE, Judy PF, Adams DF, et al. Spiral CT of the chest: comparison of cine and film-based viewing methods. Radiology 1995; 197:73-78.
3. Judy PF. The line spread function and modulation transfer function of computed tomographic scanner. Med Phys 1976; 3:233-236.
4. Judy PF. Evaluating computed tomographic image quality. In: Goldman LW, Fowlkes JB, eds. Medical CT and ultrasound: current technology and applications. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 1995; 359-377.
5. Hu H, Fox SH. Effect of helical pitch and collimation on tumor contrast and slice profile in helical CT imaging. Proc SPIE 1995; 2432:308-318.
6. Plewes DP, Dean PB. Influence of partial volume averaging on sphere detectability in computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 1981; 16:135-138.
7. Goodenough DJ, Weaver KE. Factors related to low contrast resolution in CT scanners. Comput Radiol 1984; 8:297-308.
8. Habbal F, Cargill EB, Schuh D, Ferla G. New digital hardcopy system for medical diagnostics. Proc SPIE 1993; 1987:204-214.
9. Parker JA, Kenyon RV, Troxel DE. Comparison of interpolating methods for image resampling. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1983; 2:31-39.
10. Dorfman DD, Alf E. Maximum-likelihood estimation of parameters of signal-detection theory and determination of confidence intervals-ratings method data. J Math Psychol 1969; 6:487-496.
11. Kijewski MF, Swensson RG, Judy PF. Analysis of rating data from multiple-alternative tasks. J Math Psychol 1989; 33:428-451.
12. Burgess AE. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. Med Phys 1995; 22:643-655.
13. Swensson RG, Judy PF. Measuring performance efficiency and consistency in visual discriminations with noisy images. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1996; 22:1393-1415.
14. Seltzer SE, Judy PF, Swensson RG, Chan KH, Nawfel RD. Flattening of the contrast-detail curve for large lesions on liver CT images. Med Phys 1994; 21:1547-1555.
15. Ishida M, Doi K, Loo LN, Metz CE, Lehr JL. Digital image processing: effect on detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic patterns. Radiology 1984; 150:569-575.
16. Van Nes FL, Bouman MA. Spatial modulation transform in the human eye. J Opt Soc Am 1967; 56:401-406.
17. Wester C, Judy PF, Polger M, Swensson R, Feldman U, Seltzer SE. The influence of visual distractors on detectability of liver lesions on contrast-enhanced spiral CT scans. Acad Radiol 1997; 4:335-342.