Literature DB >> 21491198

Continuing challenges in defining image quality.

Narendra Shet1, Joseph Chen, Eliot L Siegel.   

Abstract

To achieve significant dose reduction without compromising diagnostic efficacy, it is important to understand the effects of exposure reduction on image quality, a concept that is often mentioned but not well defined in the imaging literature. Studies to assess subjective image quality for digital radiography (DR) demonstrate wide variability among radiologists and technologists, resulting in substantial variability in the determination of acceptable image quality and optimal radiation exposure required to obtain a high-quality radiograph. In addition to improving detector technology and image processing techniques and tailoring exposure to the exam type and patient body habitus, it is possible to take advantage of informatics-based and psychoperceptual approaches. These can be used to establish the relative trade-offs among patient exposure, perceived image quality, and diagnostic efficacy. Innovations such as automated quality assessment of digital radiographs, use of a mathematical model of the human visual system to predict the perceived impact of lower radiation exposure, the creation of a quality-assessment database of images, and better definition and training of radiologists in the determination of image quality can help to reduce variability in assessment and facilitate reductions in dose while minimizing negative effects on image quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21491198     DOI: 10.1007/s00247-011-2028-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Radiol        ISSN: 0301-0449


  6 in total

1.  Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of MTF compensation.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Jeffrey Johnson; Hans Roehrig; Michael Engstrom; Jiahua Fan; John Nafziger; Jeffrey Lubin; William J Dallas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Medical image quality as a socio-technical phenomenon.

Authors:  M Aanestad; B Edwin; R Mårvik
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.176

Review 3.  To compress or not to compress: a compressed debate.

Authors:  Eliot L Siegel; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability.

Authors:  H H Barrett
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 2.129

5.  Automating quality assurance for digital radiography.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Model observers for assessment of image quality.

Authors:  H H Barrett; J Yao; J P Rolland; K J Myers
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1993-11-01       Impact factor: 11.205

  6 in total
  2 in total

1.  Investigation of the variability in the assessment of digital chest X-ray image quality.

Authors:  Jacquelyn S Whaley; Barry D Pressman; Jonathan R Wilson; Lionel Bravo; William J Sehnert; David H Foos
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Visual grading analysis of digital neonatal chest phantom X-ray images: Impact of detector type, dose and image processing on image quality.

Authors:  M H Smet; L Breysem; E Mussen; H Bosmans; N W Marshall; L Cockmartin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 5.315

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.