Literature DB >> 10696600

Diagnostic accuracy of film-based, TIFF, and wavelet compressed digital temporomandibular joint images.

C J Trapnell1, W C Scarfe, J H Cook, A M Silvejra, F J Regennitter, B S Haskell.   

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine if digitization and the application of various compression routines to digital images of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) radiographs would diminish observer accuracy in the detection of specific osseous characteristics associated with TMJ degenerative joint disease (DJD). Nine observers viewed 6 cropped hard-copy radiographic films each of 34 TMJs (17 radiographic series). Regions of interest measuring 2 in x 2 in were digitized using an 8-bit scanner with transparency adapter at 300 dpi. The images were placed into a montage of 6 images and stored as tagged image file format (TIFF), compressed at 4 levels (25:1, 50:1, 75:1, and 100:1) using a wavelet algorithm, and displayed to the observers on a computer monitor. Their observations regarding condylar faceting, sclerosis, osteophyte formation, erosion, and abnormal shape were analyzed using ROC. Kappa values were determined for relative condylar size and condylar position within the glenoid fossa. Indices were compared using ANOVA at a significance level of P < .05. Although significant and substantial observer variability was demonstrated, there were no statistically significant differences between image modalities, except for condylar position, in which TIFF and wavelet (at all compression ratios) performed better than the original image. For faceting, wavelet 100:1 performed better than radiographic film images. Little actual image file reduction was achieved at compression ratios above 25:1.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10696600      PMCID: PMC3453426          DOI: 10.1007/bf03168339

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  29 in total

1.  Performance of film, desktop monitor and laptop displays in caries detection.

Authors:  J B Ludlow; M Abreu
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  A comparison of wavelet and Joint Photographic Experts Group lossy compression methods applied to medical images.

Authors:  T A Iyriboz; M J Zukoski; K D Hopper; P L Stagg
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Perceived fidelity of compressed and reconstructed radiological images: a preliminary exploration of compression, luminance, and viewing distance.

Authors:  T K Pilgram; R M Slone; E Muka; J R Cox; G J Blaine
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Reduction in size of digital images: does it lead to less detectability or loss of diagnostic information? .

Authors:  C H Versteeg; G C Sanderink; S R Lobach; P F van der Stelt
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images.

Authors:  R A Cederberg; N L Frederiksen; B W Benson; J D Shulman
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  Wavelet versus JPEG (Joint Photographic Expert Group) and fractal compression. Impact on the detection of low-contrast details in computed radiographs.

Authors:  J Ricke; P Maass; E Lopez Hänninen; T Liebig; H Amthauer; C Stroszczynski; W Schauer; T Boskamp; M Wolf
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 6.016

Review 7.  Treatment of temporomandibular disorders in children: summary statements and recommendations. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Dental School.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 3.634

8.  Detection of subtle abnormalities on chest radiographs after irreversible compression.

Authors:  V Savcenko; B J Erickson; P M Palisson; K R Persons; A Manduca; T E Hartman; G F Harms; L R Brown
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  ROC methodology in radiologic imaging.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 6.016

10.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.