Fractal-Feature Distance Analysis of Radiographic Image

Academic Radiology

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 137-143

  Imai, Kuniahru ^a   Ikeda, Mitsuru ^a   Enchi, Yukihiro ^b   Niimi, Takanaga ^a  

^a NAGOYA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b OSAKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

Author keywords

Fractal analysis; fractal feature distance; medical image analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; FRACTAL ANALYSIS; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOGRAPHY; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

FRACTALS; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC;

EID: 33846252848     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2006.10.023     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Rapp-Bernhardt U., Roehl F.W., Gibbs R.C., Schmidl H., Krause U.W., and Bernhardt T.M. Flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon versus asymmetric screen-film system: Phantom study of dose reduction and depiction of simulated findings. Radiology 227 (2003) 484-492
2. Strotzer M., Völk M., Frund R., Hamer O., Zorger N., and Feuerbach S. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: Image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178 (2002) 169-171
3. van Heesewijk H.P.M., van der Graaf Y., de Valois J.C., and Feldberg M.A.M. 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 167 (1996) 403-408
4. Völk M., Hamer O.W., Feuerbach S., and Strotzer M. Dose reduction in skeletal and chest radiography using a large-area flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon and thallium-doped cesium iodide: Technical background, basic image quality parameters, and review of the literature. Eur Radiol 14 (2004) 827-834
5. Chotas H.G., Floyd Jr. C.E., Dobbins III J.T., and Ravin C.E. Digital chest radiography with photostimulable storage phosphors: Signal-to-noise ratio as a function of kilovoltage with matched exposure risk. Radiology 186 (1993) 395-398
6. Schaefer C.M., Greene R., Llewellyn H.J., et al. Interstitial lung disease: Impact of postprocessing in digital storage phosphor imaging. Radiology 178 (1991) 733-738
7. Sund P., Båth M., Kheddache S., and Månsson L.G. Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography. Eur Radiol 14 (2004) 48-58
8. Hillen W., Schiebel U., and Zaengel T. Imaging performance of a digital storage phosphor system. Med Phys 14 (1987) 744-751
9. Strotzer M., Völk M., Wild T., von Landenberg P., and Feuerbach S. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: Detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Radiology 215 (2000) 512-515
10. Fischbach F., Ricke J., Freund T., et al. Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: Assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies. Invest Radiol 37 (2002) 609-614
11. Suryanarayanan S., Karellas A., Vedantham S., Ved H., Baker S.P., and D'Orsi C.J. Flat-panel digital mammography system: Contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images. Radiology 225 (2002) 801-807
12. Bacher K., Smeets P., Bonnarens K., De Hauwere A., Verstraete K., and Thierens H. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: Digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181 (2003) 923-929
13. Hanley J.A., and McNeil B.J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143 (1982) 29-36
14. Thijssen M.A., Thijssen H.O., Merx J.L., and van Woensel M.P. Quality analysis of DSA equipment. Neuroradiology 30 (1988) 561-568
15. Revesz G. Conspicuity and uncertainty in the radiographic detection of lesions. Radiology 154 (1985) 625-628
16. Kundel H.L., and Revesz G. Lesion conspicuity, structured noise, and film reader error. AJR Am J Roentgenol 126 (1976) 1233-1238
17. Burgess A.E., Wagner R.F., Jennings R.J., and Barlow H.B. Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. Science 214 (1981) 93-94
18. Khurd P., and Gindi G. LROC model observers for emission tomographic reconstruction. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 5372 (2004) 509-520
19. Pentland A.P. Fractal-based description of natural scenes. IEEE Trans Pattern Analysis Machine Intelligence (1984) 661-674 PAMI-6
20. Mandelbrot B.B. The Fractal Geometry of Nature (1977), WH Freeman and Company, New York
21. Floyd Jr. C.E., Patz Jr. E.F., Lo J.Y., Vittitoe N.F., and Stambaugh L.E. Diffuse nodular lung disease on chest radiographs: A pilot study of characterization by fractal dimension. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167 (1996) 1185-1187
22. Mochizuki T., Fujii M., and Takayuki I. Image retrieval using a new fractal feature and robust structural information [in Japanese]. ITE 57 (2003) 719-728
23. Carvalho L.M.V., and Silva Dias M.A.F. An application of fractal box dimension to recognition of mesoscale cloud patterns in infrared satellite images. J Appl Meteorology 37 (1998) 1265-1282
24. Sternberg S. Grayscale morphology. Comput Vision Graphics Image Process 35 (1986) 333-355