Image quality assessment tools for optimization of CT images

Radiography

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 147-153

  Zarb, Francis ^a   Rainford, Louise ^b   McEntee, Mark F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MALTA   (Malta)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

CT; Diagnostic accuracy; Diagnostic efficacy; Image quality measuremcents; Objective image quality; Subjective image quality

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST RESOLUTION; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; LINEARITY; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SPATIAL RESOLUTION; UNIFORMITY; VISUAL GRADING ANALYSIS;

EID: 77950300989     PISSN: 10788174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2009.10.002     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Haaga J. Radiation dose management: weighing risk versus benefit. AJR 2001, 177:289-291.
2. ICRP Annals of the ICRP Publication 60: 1990 recommendations of the ICRP on radiological protection 1991, Pergamon Press, UK.
3. ICRP Annals of the ICRP Publication 101: assessing dose of the representative person for the purpose of radiation protection of the public and the optimisation of radiological protection: broadening the process 2006, Elsevier, UK.
4. Marmolya G., Wiesen E., Yagan R., Harija C., Shah A. Paranasal sinuses: low dose CT. Radiology 1991, 181:689-691.
5. Mansson L. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000, 90(1-2):89-99.
6. Kalra M., Prasad S., Saini S., Blake M., Varghese J., Halpern E., et al. Clinical comparison of standard dose and 50% reduced dose abdominal CT: effect on image quality. AJR 2002, 179:1101-1106.
7. Mayo J., Aldrich J., Muller N. Radiation exposure at chest CT: a statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003, 228:15-21.
8. Martin C., Sutton D., Sharp P. Balancing patient dose and image quality. Appl Radiat Isot 1999, 50:1-19.
9. McCollough C., Bruesewitz M., Kofler J. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. RadioGraphics 2006, 26:503-512.
10. Kalender W. Computed tomography: fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications 2005, Publicis Corporate Publishing, Erlangen.
11. Bushberg J., Seibert A., Leidholdt E., Boone J. The essential physics of medical imaging 2002, Lippincott, USA. 2nd ed.
12. IEC Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments. Part 2-6: constancy tests - X-ray equipment for computed tomography 1994, IEC, (1223):2-6.
13. Reddinger W. CT image quality 1998, OutSource, Inc.
14. Wessling J., Fischbach R., Meier N., Allkemper T., Klusmeier J., Ludwig K., et al. CT Colonography: protocol optimization with multi-detector row CT - Study in an anthropomorphic colon phantom. Radiology 2003, 228:753-759.
15. McNitt-Gray M. Tradeoffs in CT image quality and dose. Med Phys 2006, 33(6):2154-2162.
16. McNitt-Gray M. Radiation dose in CT. RadioGraphics 2002, 22:1541-1553.
17. Primak A., McCollough C., Bruesewitz M., Zhang J., Fletcher J. Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multidetector row CT. RadioGraphics 2006, 26:1785-1794.
18. Crawley M., Booth A., Wainwright A. A practical approach to the first iteration in the optimizatiion of radiation dose and image quality in CT: estimates of the collective dose savings achieved. BJR 2001, 74:607-614.
19. Hamberg L., Rhea J., Hunter G., Thraall J. Multi-detector row CT: radiation dose characteristics. Radiology 2003, 226:762-772.
20. The phantom laboratory. Catphan 500 and 600 manual, 2006.
21. Starck G., Lonn L., Cederblad A., Alpsten M., Sjostrom L., Ekholm S. Radiation dose reduction in CT: application to tissue area and volume determination. Radiology 1998, 209:397-403.
22. Power N., Pryor M., Martin A., Harrocks J., McLean A., Reznek R. Optimization of scanning parameters for CT colonography. BJR 2002, 75:401-408.
23. Rusinek H., Naidich D., McGuinness G., Leitman B., McCauley D., Krinsky G., et al. Pulmonary nodule detection: low dose versus conventional CT. Radiology 1998, 209:243-249.
24. Pachoud M., Verdun F., Moeckli R., Hessler C., Lepori D., Valley J. New screen-film characterisation by means of objective and subjective methods. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000, 90(1-2):177-180.
25. Data Spectrum Corporation. Medical Imaging Phantom Design. 2008. ; (Accessed 27th May 2009). http://www.spect.com/faq.html.
26. Ciantar D., Fitzgerald M., Cotterill D., Pettett A., Cook V., Beluffi G., et al. Correlation between quantitative and subjective assessment of image quality in pediatric radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000, 90(1-2):185-188.
27. Jurik A., Jessen K., Hansen J. Image quality and dose in computed tomography. Eur Radiol 1997, 7:77-81.
28. Gerber T., Kuzo R., Morin R. Techniques and parameters for estimating radiation exposure and dose in cardiac computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2005, 21:165-176.
29. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography, 1999.
30. Calzado A., Rodriguez R., Munoz A. Quality criteria implementation fot brain and lumbar spine CT. Examination BJR 2000, 73:384-395.
31. Moran L., Rodriguez R., Calzado A., Turrero A., Arenas A., Cuevas A., et al. Image quality and dose evaluation in spiral CT examinations of patients with lung carcinoma. BJR 2004, 77:839-846.
32. Jurik A., Petersen J., Jessen K., Bongartz G., Geleijns J., Golding S., et al. Clinical use of image quality criteria in computed tomography: a pilot study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000, 90(1-2):47-52.
33. Jessen K., Bongarts G., Geleijns J., Golding S., Jurik A., Leonardi M., et al. Quality criteria development within the fourth framework research programme: computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000, 90(1-2):79-83.
34. Metz C. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986, 21:720-733.
35. Chakraborty D. ROC curves predicted by a model of visual research. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51:3463-3482.
36. Altman D., Bland J. Statistics notes: diagnostic tests 3: receiver operator characteristics. BJR 1994, 309:188.
37. Vining D., Gladish G. Receiver operating characteristic curves: a basic understanding. RadioGraphics 1992, 12:1147-1154.
38. Chakraborty D. Recent advances in observer performance methodology: Jackknife Free-Response ROC (JAFROC). Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005, 114(1-3):26-31.
39. Chakraborty D. A search model and figure of merit for observer data acquired according to the free-response paradigm. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51:3449-3462.
40. Obuchiwski N. New methodological tools for multiple reader ROC studies. Radiology 2007, 243:10-12.
41. Obuchiwski N. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 2003, 229:3-8.
42. Park S., Goo J., Jo C. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: practical review for radiologists. Korean J Radiol 2004, 5(1):11-18.
43. Chakraborty D., Berbaum K. Observer studies involving detection and localization: modelling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys 2004, 31(80):2313-2330.
44. Chakraborty D, 2005, Welcome to Dev Chakraborty's FROC Web Site http://www.devchakraborty.com%20murrysville.
45. Chakraborty D, 2005, JAFROC http://www.devchakraborty.com%20murrysville.
46. Chakraborty D, 2005, How to Conduct a Free Response Study. http://www.devchakraborty.com%20murrysville.