Literature DB >> 21779947

Effect of display magnification on perceived growth of liver lesions on computed tomography.

Franklin N Tessler1, Michael S Loop, Naomi Fineberg, Michelle M McNamara, Tatum A McArthur.   

Abstract

Our goal was to investigate the effect of displayed image magnification on perception of the size of hepatic lesions on abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. Institutional review board approval and informed observer consent were obtained. Three experienced radiologists reviewed 90 CT image pairs in one session. Each image pair demonstrated a solitary, well-defined hypodense hepatic lesion measuring greater than 1 cm obtained at two points in time. The image pairs were presented three times in random order, once with the left image magnified, once with the right image magnified, and once with neither image magnified. The radiologists were asked to determine on which image the lesion was smaller or if there was no difference. The responses were analyzed statistically. The proportion of correct responses increased significantly as the difference in lesion size increased (p < 0.001). The percent of correct responses was higher when neither CT image was magnified. Magnification of one image decreased the accuracy of the readers' performance, especially at smaller differences, both of which were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Thus, accuracy of detecting lesion size differences was degraded when the images were presented at differing magnification. This should be kept in mind when evaluating serial CT scans for growth or regression of tumors and other lesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21779947      PMCID: PMC3295966          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-011-9403-0

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


  5 in total

1.  Defining thresholds for changes in size of simulated T2-hyperintense brain lesions on the basis of qualitative comparisons.

Authors:  Elias R Melhem; Edward H Herskovits; Kader Karli-Oguz; Xavier Golay; Dima A Hammoud; Brian J Fortman; Fletcher M Munter; Ryuta Itoh
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  The effect of image display size on observer performance an assessment of variance components.

Authors:  David Gur; Amy H Klym; Jill L King; Glenn S Maitz; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Howard E Rockette; F Leland Thaete
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Binsheng Zhao; Leonard P James; Chaya S Moskowitz; Pingzhen Guo; Michelle S Ginsberg; Robert A Lefkowitz; Yilin Qin; Gregory J Riely; Mark G Kris; Lawrence H Schwartz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response.

Authors:  Jeremy J Erasmus; Gregory W Gladish; Lyle Broemeling; Bradley S Sabloff; Mylene T Truong; Roy S Herbst; Reginald F Munden
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 5.  RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline.

Authors:  Els L van Persijn van Meerten; Hans Gelderblom; Johan L Bloem
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.