Literature DB >> 14998675

Objective measurements of image quality.

Jacinta E Browne1, Amanda J Watson, Nicholas M Gibson, Nicholas J Dudley, Alex T Elliott.   

Abstract

Tissue harmonic imaging (THI) and compound imaging have been reported clinically to improve contrast resolution, tissue differentiation and overall image quality. However, there have been limited studies to date to quantify objectively the improvements in image quality achieved with these new imaging techniques. The aim of this study was to quantify differences in image quality that exist between conventional B-mode imaging, harmonic imaging, compound imaging and harmonic compound imaging. An ATL HDI 5000 scanner with three probes (C5-2, L7-4 and L12-5) was tested with two different types of test object, the Gammex-RMI model 404 GS LE and the Gammex-RMI 403 GS LE. The measurement limitations associated with subjective analysis methods were not present in this study because an automated image analysis program was used to determine the image quality parameters. Therefore, subtle differences between the four imaging modes could be detected. Significant improvements in lateral resolution and slice thickness as a function of depth were found with THI. Contrast resolution and anechoic target detection improved with compound imaging, and harmonic compound imaging improved lateral resolution, slice thickness as a function of depth and contrast resolution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14998675     DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.10.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol        ISSN: 0301-5629            Impact factor:   2.998


  8 in total

1.  Mechanical and clinical performance of pulse-inversion tissue harmonic imaging in the superficial region.

Authors:  Chieko Sugawara; Akira Takahashi
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 1.314

2.  Agreement between objective and subjective assessment of image quality in ultrasound abdominal aortic aneurism screening.

Authors:  S Wolstenhulme; A G Davies; C Keeble; S Moore; J A Evans
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Automating tumor classification with pixel-by-pixel contrast-enhanced ultrasound perfusion kinetics.

Authors:  Casey N Ta; Yuko Kono; Christopher V Barback; Robert F Mattrey; Andrew C Kummel
Journal:  J Vac Sci Technol B Nanotechnol Microelectron       Date:  2012-03-22

4.  The speed of sound and attenuation of an IEC agar-based tissue-mimicking material for high frequency ultrasound applications.

Authors:  Chao Sun; Stephen D Pye; Jacinta E Browne; Anna Janeczko; Bill Ellis; Mairead B Butler; Vassilis Sboros; Adrian J W Thomson; Mark P Brewin; Charles H Earnshaw; Carmel M Moran
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 2.998

5.  Method for automatic detection of defective ultrasound linear array transducers based on uniformity assessment of clinical images - A case study.

Authors:  Robert Lorentsson; Nasser Hosseini; Jan-Olof Johansson; Wiebke Rosenberg; Benny Stenborg; Lars Gunnar Månsson; Magnus Båth
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Evaluation of Imaging Parameters of Ultrasound Scanners: Baseline for Future Testing.

Authors:  Ewa Fabiszewska; Katarzyna Pasicz; Iwona Grabska; Witold Skrzyński; Wioletta Ślusarczyk-Kacprzyk; Wojciech Bulski
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2017-12-15

7.  Image quality evaluation of ultrasound imaging systems: advanced B-modes.

Authors:  Elisabetta Sassaroli; Calum Crake; Andrea Scorza; Don-Soo Kim; Mi-Ae Park
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Intra- and interobserver reliability of gray scale/dynamic range evaluation of ultrasonography using a standardized phantom.

Authors:  Song Lee; Joon-Il Choi; Michael Yong Park; Dong Myung Yeo; Jae Young Byun; Seung Eun Jung; Sung Eun Rha; Soon Nam Oh; Young Joon Lee
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2014-02-26
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.