Lesson from my dinners with the giants of modern image science

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 114, Issue 1-3, 2005, Pages 4-10

  Wagner, Robert F ^a  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FOURIER ANALYSIS; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHOTOGRAPHY; QUANTUM MECHANICS; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOGRAPHY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SIGNAL DETECTION; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TELEVISION; HISTORY; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; METHODOLOGY; ROC CURVE;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; ROC CURVE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 21244503139     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nch503     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Rose, A. A unified approach to the performance of photographic film, television pickup tubes and the human eye. J. Soc. Motion Pict. Eng. 47, 273-294 (1946).
2. Rose, A. The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 38, 196-208 (1948).
3. Rose, A. Quantum and noise limitations of the visual process. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 43, 715-716 (1953).
4. Rose, A. Vision - Human and Electronic (New York: Plenum) (1973).
5. Rose, A. The challenge of electronic photography. J. Appl. Photographic Eng. 2, 70-74 (1976).
6. Burgess, A. E. The Rose model, revisited. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 633-646 (1999).
7. Schade, O. H., Sr. Image Quality: A Comparison of Photographic and Television Systems (Princeton, NJ: RCA Laboratories) (1975).
8. Wagner, R. F. and Weaver, K. E. An assortment of image quality indexes for radiographic film-screen combinations - can they be resolved? Proc. SPIE 35, 83-94 (1972).
9. Barrett, H. H., Yao, J., Rolland, J. P. and Myers, K. J. Model observers for assessment of image quality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. (USA) 90, 9758-9765 (1993).
10. Burgess, A. E., Shaw, R. and Lubin, J. Noise in imaging systems and human vision. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. 16, 618 (1999).
11. Dainty, J. C. and Shaw, R. Image Science (New York, London: Academic Press) (1974).
12. Shaw, R. End-to-End Linearity Considerations for Photon-Limited Detection and Display Systems. Proc. of the SPIE 5030 (Medical Imaging 2003: Physics of Medical Imaging, SPIE, Bellingham WA), pp. 414-421. Also, various short reports and personal communications (2000-2004).
13. Wagner, R. F. and Brown, D. G. Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems. Phys. Med. Biol. 30, 489-518 (1985).
14. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Medical Imaging: The Assessment of Image Quality. ICRU Report 54 (Bethesda, MD: ICRU) (1996).
15. Metz, C. E., Wagner, R. F., Doi, K., Brown, D. G., Nishikawa, R. M. and Myers, K. J. Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems. Med. Phys. 22, 1057-1061 (1995).
16. Gagne, R. M., Jafroudi, H., Jennings, R. J. et al. Digital mammography using storage phosphor plates and a computer-designed X-ray system. In: Digital Mammography '96. Doi, K., Giger, M. L., Nishikawa, R. M. and Schmidt, R. A., Eds. (Amsterdam: Elsevier) pp. 133-138 (1996).
17. Tapiovaara, M. J. and Wagner, R. F. SNR and DQE analysis of broad spectrum X-ray imaging. Phys. Med. Biol. 30, 519-529 (1985).
18. Lundqvist, M., Danielsson, M., Cederstrom, B., Chmill, V., Chuntonov, A. and Aslund, M. Measurements on a Full-Field Digital Mammography system with a Photon Counting Crystalline Silicon Detector. Proc. of the SPIE 5030-31. (Medical Imaging 2003: Physics of Medical Imaging. SPIE, Bellingham WA) pp. 547-552 (2003).
19. Rabbani, M., Shaw, R. and VanMetter, R. Detective quantum efficiency of imaging systems with amplifying and scattering mechanisms. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 895-901 (1987).
20. Cunningham, I. A. and Shaw, R. Signal-to-noise optimization of medical imaging systems. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. 16, 621-632 (1999).
21. Barrett, H. H., Wagner, R. F. and Myers, K. J. Correlated Point Processes in Radiological Imaging. Proc. of the SPIE 3032. (Medical Imaging 1997: Physics of Medical Imaging, SPIE, Bellingham WA) pp. 110-124.
22. Barrett, H. H. and Myers, K. J. Foundations of Image Science. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley) (2004).
23. Kundel, H. L. Visual search in medical images. In: Handbook of Medical Imaging. Vol. 1. Physics and Psychophysics. Beutel, J., Kundel, H. L. and Van Metter, R. L., Eds. (Bellingham WA: SPIE PRESS) pp. 837-858 (2000).
24. Samei, E., Eyler, W. and Baron, L. Effects of anatomical structure on signal detection. In: Handbook of Medical Imaging. Vol. 1. Physics and Psychophysics. Beutel, J., Kundel, H. L. and Van Metter, R. L., Eds. (Bellingham WA: SPIE PRESS) pp. 655-682 (2000).
25. Burgess, A. E., Jacobson, F. L. and Judy, P. F. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med. Phys. 28, 419-437 (2001).
26. Tingberg, A., Bath, M., Hakansson, M., Medin, J., Sandborg, M., Alm-Carlsson, G., Mattsson, S. and Mansson, L. G. Comparison of Two Methods for Evaluation of Image Quality of Lumbar Spine Radiographs. Proc. of the SPIE 5372. (Medical Imaging, Bellingham WA) pp. 251-262 (2004).
27. Albert, M. and Maidment, A. D. A. Linear response theory for detectors consisting of discrete arrays. Med. Phys. 27, 2417-2434 (2000).
28. Barrett, H. H., Denny, J. L., Wagner, R. F. and Myers, K. J. Objective assessment of image quality. II. Fisher information, Fourier crosstalk, and figures of merit for task performance. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 834-852 (1995).
29. Gagne, R. M. Private communication of Monte Carlo simulations (2004).
30. Joseph, P. M. and Schulz, R. A. View sampling requirements in fan beam computed tomography. Med. Phys. 7, 692-702 (1980).
31. Peters, D. C., Grist, T. M., Korosec, F. R., Holden, J. E., Block, W. F., Wedding K. L., Carroll, T. J. and Mistretta, C. A. Undersampled projection reconstruction applied to MR angiography. Magn. Reson. Med. 43, 91-101 (2000).
32. Vigen, K. K., Peters, D. C., Grist, T. M., Block, W. F. and Mistretta, C. A. Undersampled projection-reconstruction imaging for time-resolved contrast-enhanced imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 43, 170-176 (2000).
33. Barger, A. V., Block. W. F., Toropov, Y., Grist, T. M. and Mistretta, C. A. Time-resolved contrast-enhanced imaging with isotropic resolution and broad coverage using an undersampled 3D projection trajectory. Magn. Reson. Med. 48, 297-305 (2002).
34. Myers, K. J., Wagner, R. F. and Hanson, K. M. Binary task performance on images reconstructed using MEMSYS 3: comparison of machine and human observers. In: Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods. Mohammad-Djafari, A. and Demoment, G., Eds. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic) pp. 415-421 (1993). This and many related papers are available from the Website of Kenneth M. Hanson of Los Alamos National Labs: http://public.lanl.gov/kmh/publications/
35. Beam, C., Layde, P. M. and Sullivan, D. C. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch. Intern. Med. 156, 209-213 (1996).
36. Wagner, R. F., Beiden, S. V., Campbell, G., Metz, C. E. and Sacks, W. M. Assessment of medical imaging and computer-assist systems: lessons from recent experience. Acad. Radiol. 9, 1264-1277 (2002).
37. Wagner, R. F., Beiden, S. V., Campbell, G., Metz, C. E. and Sacks, W. M. Contemporary Issues for Experimental Design in Assessment of Medical Imaging and Computer-Assist Systems. Proceedings of the SPIE Vol. 5034 (Medical Imaging, Bellingham WA), pp. 213-224 (2003).
38. Beiden, S. V., Wagner, R. F., Campbell, G., Metz, C. E. and Jiang, Y. Components-of-variance models for random-effects ROC analysis: the case of unequal variance structures across modalities. Acad. Radiol. 8, 605-615 (2001).