An anthropomorphic phantom for receiver operating characteristic studies in CT imaging of liver lesions

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 72, Issue JAN., 1999, Pages 35-43

  Olerud, H M ^a   Olsen, J B ^b   Skretting, A ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AUTHORITY   (Norway)

^b OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GLYCEROL; WATER;

ANTHROPOMETRY; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; LIVER INJURY; PHANTOM; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; RADIATION DOSE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

EID: 0032922893     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.72.853.10341687     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Olerud HM, Saxebøl G. Diagnostic radiology in Norway from 1983 to 1993 - examination frequency and collective effective dose to patients. Radiat Prot Dosim 1997;74:247-60.
2. Olerud HM. Analysis of factors influencing patient doses from CT in Norway. Radiat Prot Dosim 1997;71:123-33.
3. Servomaa A, Karppinen J, Heikkilä M. Low-contrast performance of CT units. In: Proceedings of IRPA9, 1996 International Congress on Radiation Protections; April 14-19 1996; Vienna. Seibersdorf: International Radiation Protection Association, c/o Austrian Research Centre 1996;3:465-7.
4. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 60. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991.
5. The Hospital Physicists' Association. Measurements of the performance characteristics of diagnostic X-ray systems used in medicine. Part III Computed tomography X-ray scanners. Topic group report-32. London: HPA, 1981.
6. The Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare. Recommended standards for the evaluation of the performance of X-ray computed devices (English translation). Stamford: Alderson research laboratories (year unknown).
7. Medical Devices Agency. An assessment of the image performance of the IGE Prospeed CT scanner. MDA Evaluation Report M DA/94/47. London: MDA, 1994.
8. Seeram E, editor. Computed tomography: Physical principles, clinical applications, and quality control. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1994.
9. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Constancy tests-X-ray equipment for computed tomography. IEC Publication 1223-2-6. Geneva: IEC, 1994.
10. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment. Part 2: Particular requirements for the safety of X-ray equipment for computed tomography. IEC 601-2-44 (Draft for vote). Geneva: IEC, 1997.
11. Hansen J, Jessen KA, Jurik AG. Dose descriptors for implementation of reference doses in computed tomography. Physica Medica 1997;13:116-9.
12. Bongatz G, Golding SJ, Jurik A, Leonardi M, Geleijns J, Jessen KA, et al. Quality criteria for computed tomography. Report EUR 16262 (Working document, April 1997). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997.
13. Jurik AG, Jessen KA, Hansen J. Image quality and dose in computed tomography. Eur Radiol 1997; 7:77-81.
14. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiographic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986;21:720-33.
15. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 1989;24:234-45.
16. Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in medical imaging. ICRU News, June 1997;1:7-16.
17. Fishman EK, Urban BA, Hruban RH. CT of the stomach: spectrum of disease. Scientific Exhibit 1996; 16:1035-54.
18. Wegener OH, editor. Whole body computed tomography. Berlin: Blackwell Wissenschaft-Verlag GmbH, 1994.
19. White DR, Speller RD, Taylor BA. Evaluating performance characteristics in computed tomography. Br J Radiol 1981;54:221-31.
20. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
21. Olsen JB, Skretting A. Detectability of simulated masses and calcifications in mammography: Development of a phantom and a new method for determination of receiver operating characteristics. Acta Radiol 1998;39:501-6.
22. Bevington PR, Robinson DK. Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992.
23. Giacommuzzi SM, Erckert B, Schoeph D, Freund MC, Springer P, Dessl A, et al. The "smart scantechnique in spiral computed tomography: A new method for dose reduction. RöFo Fortschr Geb Röntgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1996;165: 10-16.
24. Kalender W. Technical foundations of spiral CT. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 1994;15:81-9.
25. Kalender WA, Polacin A, Süss C. A comparison of conventional and spiral CT: An experimental study on the detection of spherical lesions. JCAT 1994; 18:167-76.
26. Wang G, Vannier MW. Low contrast resolution in volumetric X-ray CT - analytical comparison between conventional and spiral CT. Med Phys 1997;24:373-6.
27. Kuszyk BS, Bluemke DA, Urban BA, Choti MA, Hruban RH, Sutzmann JV, et al. Portal-phase contrast-enhanced helical CT for the detection of malignant hepatic tumors. AJR 1996;166:91-5.
28. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Medical imaging - the assessment of image quality, ICRU Report 54. Bethesda MD: ICRU, 1996.