Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images - Comparison with subjective visual assessment

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 50, Issue 23, 2005, Pages 5743-5757

  Pascoal, A ^a,b   Lawinski, C P ^b   Honey, I ^b   Blake, P ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KING S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; DETECTORS; OPTIMIZATION; RELIABILITY;

CONTRAST DETAIL ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SYSTEMS;

IMAGE QUALITY;

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DECISION MAKING; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMAGING; INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ALGORITHMS; AUTOMATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, RADIATION; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 28644439424     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/23/023     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Artinis Medical Systems B.V. 2004 Manual CDRAD Analyser
2. Chotas G H and Ravin E C 2001 Digital chest radiography with a solid state flat-panel detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy Radiology 218 679-82
3. Cohen G, McDaniel L D and Wagner K L 1984 Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments Med. Phys. 11 469-73
4. Hamer O W, Volk M, Zorger N, Feuerbach S and Strotzer M 2003 Amorphous silicon flat-panel detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses Investigative Radiology 38 212-20
5. Honey I 2004 Investigation of optimum energies for chest imaging using film-screen and computed radiography Br. J. Radiol. 78 4227
6. Kwan C L A, Filipow J L and Le H L 2003 Automatic quantitative low contrast analysis of digital chest phantom radiographs Med. Phys. 30 312-20
7. Liu X and Shaw C 2004 A-Si:H/CsI(Tl) flat-panel detector versus computed radiography for chest imaging applications: image quality metrics measurements Med. Phys. 31 98-110
8. Martin J C, Sharp F P and Sutton G D 1999 Measurement of image quality in diagnostic radiology Appl. Radiat. Isot. 50 21-38
9. Rong J X, Shaw C C, Liu X and Lemacks R M 2001 Comparison of an amorphous silicon/caesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems - A contrast-detail phantom study Med. Phys. 28 2328-35
10. Swensson G R and Judy P 1981 Detection of noisy visual targets: Models for the effects of spatial uncertainty and signal-to-noise ratio Percept Physcophys. 29 521-34
11. Thijssen M A O, Thijssen H O M, Merx J L, Lindeijer J M and Bijkerk K R 1989 A definition of image quality: the image quality figure BIR Report
12. Thijssen M A O, Bijkerk R K and Van der Burght M J K 1998 Manual CDRAD-Phantom type 2.0. Project Quality Assurance in Radiology Department of Radiology, University Hospital Nijmeigen, St. Radboud, The Netherlands