Comparison of the Detectability of High- and Low-Contrast Details on a TFT Screen and a CRT Screen Designed for Radiologic Diagnosis

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 38, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 719-724

  Kotter, Elmar ^a   Bley, Thorsten A ^a   Saueressig, Ulrich ^a   Fisch, Dagmar ^a   Springer, Oliver ^a   Winterer, Jan Torsten ^a   Schaefer, Oliver ^a   Langer, Mathias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Digital radiography; Image quality; Monitor; Operator characteristic curve; Receiver; Soft copy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FILM; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; LUMINANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; ROC CURVE; SEMICONDUCTOR; X RAY FILM;

EID: 0346272735     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000084885.84643.35     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Flynn MJ, Kanicki J, Badano A, et al. High-fidelity electronic display of digital radiographs. Radiographics. 1999;19:1653-1669.
2. Dorfman DD, Alf E. Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection theory and determination of confidence intervals-rating method data. J Math Psych. 1969;6:487-496.
3. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29-36.
4. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol. 1989;24:234-245.
5. Metz CE, Herman BA, Roe CA. Statistical comparison of two ROC curve estimates obtained from partially-paired datasets. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:110-121.
6. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis-generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol. 1992;27:723-731.
7. Kim AY, Cho KS, Song KS, et al. Urinary calculi on computed radiography: comparison of observer performance with hard-copy versus soft-copy images on different viewer systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177:331-335.