Chest radiography with a digital flat-panel detector: Experimental receiver operating characteristic analysis

Radiology

Volumn 234, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 776-784

  Metz, Stephan ^a   Damoser, Petra ^a   Hollweck, Regina ^b   Roggel, Rudolf ^a   Engelke, Christoph ^a   Woertler, Klaus ^a   Renger, Bernhard ^a   Rummeny, Ernst J ^a   Link, Thomas M ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DIGITAL FLAT PANEL DETECTOR; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; LUNG; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; ROC CURVE; SILICON; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 13844256812     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2343031805     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. van Heesewijk HP, van der Graaf Y, de Valois JC, Feldberg MA. Digital chest imaging using a selenium detector: a simulated diffuse interstitial pulmonary disease detection study. Invest Radiol 1995; 30:300-305.
2. van Heesewijk HP, van der Graaf Y, de Valois JC, Vos JA, Feldberg MA. Chest imaging with a selenium detector versus conventional film radiography: a CT-controlled study. Radiology 1996; 200:687-690.
3. Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M, Schmidt A, Neitzel U, Galanski M. Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions. Radiology 1996; 201:45-50.
4. Woodard PK, Slone RM, Gierada DS, Reiker GG, Pilgram TK, Jost RG. Chest radiology: depiction of normal anatomy and pathologic structures with selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional screen-film radiology. Radiology 1997; 203:197-201.
5. Woodard PK, Slone RM, Sagel SS, et al. Detection of CT proved pulmonary nodules: comparison of selenium-based digital and conventional screen-film chest radiographs. Radiology 1998; 209:705-709.
6. Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser JK, Völk M, Fründ R, Seitz J, Feuerbach S. Detection of simulated chest lesions with normal and reduced radiation dose: comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon. Invest Radiol 1998; 33:98-103.
7. Bernhardt TM, Otto D, Reichel G, et al. Detection of simulated interstitial lung disease and catheters with selenium, storage phosphor, and film-based radiography. Radiology 1999; 213:445-454.
8. Fink C, Hallscheidt PJ, Noeldge G, et al. Clinical comparative study with a large-area amorphous silicon flat-panel detector: image quality and visibility of anatomic structures on chest radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:481-486.
9. Floyd CE Jr, Warp RJ, Dobbins JT 3rd, et al. Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector for digital chest radiography. Radiology 2001; 218:683-688.
10. Neitzel U, Maack I, Günther-Kohfhl S. Image quality of a digital chest radiography system based on a selenium detector. Med Phys 1994; 21:509-516.
11. Chotas HG, Floyd CE, Ravin CE. Technical evaluation of a digital chest radiography system that uses a selenium detector. Radiology 1995; 195:264-270.
12. Ravin CE, Chotas HG. Chest radiography. Radiology 1997; 204:593-600.
13. Chotas HG, Ravin CE. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy. Radiology 2001; 218:679-682.
14. Geijer H, Beckmann KW, Andersson T, Persliden J. Image quality versus radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:1704-1709.
15. van Heesewijk HP, van der Graaf Y, de Valois JC, Feldberg MA. Effects of dose reduction on digital chest imaging using a selenium detector: a study of detecting simulated diffuse interstitial pulmonary disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:403-408.
16. Strotzer M, Völk M, Fründ R, Hamer O, Zorger N, Feuerbach S. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:169-171.
17. Launders JH, Cowen AR, Bury RF, Hawkridge P. Towards image quality, beam energy and effective dose optimization in digital thoracic radiography. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:870-875.
18. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991; 21:1-201.
19. Granfors PR. Performances characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray imaging detector. Proc SPIE 1999; 3659:480-490.
20. Williams G, Zankl M, Abmayr W, Veit R, Drexler G. The calculation of dose from external photon exposures using reference and realistic human phantoms and Monte Carlo methods. Phys Med Biol 1986; 31:449-452.
21. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978; 8:283-298.
22. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993; 39:561-577.
23. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148:839-843.