PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to provide a pragmatic tool for studying the relationship between dose and image quality in clinical chest images. To achieve this, we developed a technique for simulating the effect of dose reduction on image quality of digital chest images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The technique was developed for a digital charge-coupled-device (CCD) chest unit with slot-scan acquisition. Raw pixel values were scaled to a lower dose level, and a random number representing noise to each specific pixel value was added. After adding noise, raw images were post processed in the standard way. Validation was performed by comparing pixel standard deviation, as a measure of noise, in simulated images with images acquired at actual lower doses. To achieve this, a uniform test object and an anthropomorphic phantom were used. Additionally, noise power spectra of simulated and actual images were compared. Also, detectability of simulated lesions was investigated using a model observer. RESULTS: The mean difference in noise values between simulated and real lower-dose phantom images was smaller than 5% for relevant clinical settings. Noise power spectra appeared to be comparable on average but simulated images showed slightly higher noise levels for higher spatial frequencies and slightly lower noise levels for lower spatial frequencies. Comparable detection performance was shown in simulated and actual images with slightly worse detectability for simulated lower dose images. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a method for simulating dose reduction. Our method seems an acceptable pragmatic tool for studying the relationship between dose and image quality.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to provide a pragmatic tool for studying the relationship between dose and image quality in clinical chest images. To achieve this, we developed a technique for simulating the effect of dose reduction on image quality of digital chest images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The technique was developed for a digital charge-coupled-device (CCD) chest unit with slot-scan acquisition. Raw pixel values were scaled to a lower dose level, and a random number representing noise to each specific pixel value was added. After adding noise, raw images were post processed in the standard way. Validation was performed by comparing pixel standard deviation, as a measure of noise, in simulated images with images acquired at actual lower doses. To achieve this, a uniform test object and an anthropomorphic phantom were used. Additionally, noise power spectra of simulated and actual images were compared. Also, detectability of simulated lesions was investigated using a model observer. RESULTS: The mean difference in noise values between simulated and real lower-dose phantom images was smaller than 5% for relevant clinical settings. Noise power spectra appeared to be comparable on average but simulated images showed slightly higher noise levels for higher spatial frequencies and slightly lower noise levels for lower spatial frequencies. Comparable detection performance was shown in simulated and actual images with slightly worse detectability for simulated lower dose images. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a method for simulating dose reduction. Our method seems an acceptable pragmatic tool for studying the relationship between dose and image quality.
Authors: Rogier E van Gelder; Henk W Venema; Jasper Florie; C Yung Nio; Iwo W O Serlie; Michiel P Schutter; Jeroen C van Rijn; Frans M Vos; Afina S Glas; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Joep F W Bartelsman; Johan S Laméris; Jaap Stoker Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-06-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ehsan Samei; Robert S Saunders; Joseph Y Lo; James T Dobbins; Jonathan L Jesneck; Carey E Floyd; Carl E Ravin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: J R Mayo; K P Whittall; A N Leung; T E Hartman; C S Park; S L Primack; G K Chambers; M K Limkeman; T L Toth; S H Fox Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Donald P Frush; Christopher C Slack; Caroline L Hollingsworth; George S Bisset; Lane F Donnelly; Jiang Hsieh; Trudy Lavin-Wensell; John R Mayo Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lucia J M Kroft; Jacob Geleijns; Bart J A Mertens; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Harmine M Zonderland; Albert de Roos Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: B J Conway; P F Butler; J E Duff; T R Fewell; R E Gross; R J Jennings; G H Koustenis; J L McCrohan; F G Rueter; C K Showalter Journal: Med Phys Date: 1984 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Adam S Wang; J Webster Stayman; Yoshito Otake; Sebastian Vogt; Gerhard Kleinszig; A Jay Khanna; Gary L Gallia; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Lucas R Borges; Helder C R de Oliveira; Polyana F Nunes; Predrag R Bakic; Andrew D A Maidment; Marcelo A C Vieira Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Daniela Muenzel; Thomas Koehler; Kevin Brown; Stanislav Zabić; Alexander A Fingerle; Simone Waldt; Edgar Bendik; Tina Zahel; Armin Schneider; Martin Dobritz; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 3.240