Literature DB >> 17715097

JPEG 2000 compression of abdominal CT: difference in tolerance between thin- and thick-section images.

Hyoun Sik Woo1, Kil Joong Kim, Tae Jung Kim, Seokyung Hahn, Bohyoung Kim, Young Hoon Kim, Kyoung Ho Lee.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare the tolerance of Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) 2000 compression between thin- and thick-section abdominal CT images.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred 0.67-mm-thick and corresponding 5-mm-thick images were compressed to four different levels: reversible and irreversible 6:1, 10:1, and 15:1. Five radiologists determined if the compressed images were distinguishable from the originals. The percentage of distinguishable pairs and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) were compared between the thin and thick sections. The visually lossless threshold was estimated by comparing the percentages of the distinguishable pairs between each irreversible compression and the reversible compression. Paired Student's t tests and exact tests for paired proportions were used.
RESULTS: Thin sections had smaller PSNRs at each compression level (p < 0.001). According to the pooled responses, the percentages of distinguishable pairs for the thin and thick sections, respectively, were 0% (0/100) and 0% at reversible compression, 27% and 0% at 6:1 (p < 0.001), 100% and 80% at 10:1 (p < 0.001), and 100% and 100% at 15:1. Artifacts increased significantly (p < 0.001) at 6:1 or more for the thin sections and at 10:1 and 15:1 for the thick sections, indicating that the visually lossless thresholds were below 6:1 and between 6:1 and 10:1, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Thin-section abdominal CT images are less tolerant of compression, and a lower compression level should be used for the visually lossless threshold.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17715097     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  6 in total

1.  Computed Tomography Image Compressibility and Limitations of Compression Ratio-Based Guidelines.

Authors:  Jean-François Pambrun; Rita Noumeir
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Evaluation of irreversible compression ratios for medical images thin slice CT and update of Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) guidelines.

Authors:  David Koff; Peter Bak; André Matos; Geoff Norman
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Influence of image compression on the interpretation of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in exudative age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  J H Kim; S W Kang; J-r Kim; Y S Chang
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  The impact of irreversible image data compression on post-processing algorithms in computed tomography.

Authors:  Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Conrad Friese; Jan Borggrefe; Peter Mildenberger; Aline Mähringer-Kunz; Roman Kloeckner
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.630

5.  A multicenter observer performance study of 3D JPEG2000 compression of thin-slice CT.

Authors:  Bradley J Erickson; Elizabeth Krupinski; Katherine P Andriole
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Development of an algorithm to automatically compress a CT image to visually lossless threshold.

Authors:  Chang-Mo Nam; Kyong Joon Lee; Yousun Ko; Kil Joong Kim; Bohyoung Kim; Kyoung Ho Lee
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 1.930

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.