Literature DB >> 25421807

DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated medical grade monitor vs a DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) monitor for viewing 8-bit dental images.

D J McIlgorm1, J P McNulty.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether there is any difference in the presented image quality between a medical grade monitor and a "commercial off-the- shelf" (COTS) monitor when displaying an 8-bit dental image.
METHODS: The digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) part 14: greyscale standard display function (GSDF) was verified for both monitors. A visual grading characteristics (VGC) curve was constructed to measure the difference in image quality between the two monitors by comparing radiological structures displayed on each monitor with a DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated laptop monitor as reference.
RESULTS: All of the monitors conformed to within the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18 10% tolerance levels for the assessment of the DICOM part 14: GSDF. There was no difference in the preferred perceived visual sensation for the displayed image between the two tested monitors with the area under the VGC curve = 0.53 and 95% confidence interval = 0.47-0.59.
CONCLUSIONS: A DICOM part 14: GSDF COTS monitor is capable of displaying an image quality that is equally preferred to a DICOM part 14: GSDF medical grade monitor for an 8-bit image file.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bit depth; greyscale; monitor

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25421807      PMCID: PMC4614161          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  15 in total

1.  Influence of displayed image size on radiographic detection of approximal caries.

Authors:  R Haak; M J Wicht; G Nowak; M Hellmich
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Need for liquid-crystal display monitors having the capability of rendering higher than 8 bits in display-bit depth.

Authors:  Takeshi Hiwasa; Junji Morishita; Shiro Hatanaka; Masafumi Ohki; Fukai Toyofuku; Yoshiharu Higashida
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2008-12-17

3.  8-bit or 11-bit monochrome displays--which image is preferred by the radiologist?

Authors:  Stephan Bender; Kai Lederle; Christel Weiss; Stefan O Schoenberg; Gerald Weisser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: technological and psychophysical considerations for digital mammographic displays.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.333

5.  Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist.

Authors:  Patrick C Brennan; Mark McEntee; Michael Evanoff; Peter Phillips; William T O'Connor; David J Manning
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Medical grade vs off-the-shelf color displays: influence on observer performance and visual search.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Personal computer versus workstation display: observer performance in detection of wrist fractures on digital radiographs.

Authors:  Anthony J Doyle; James Le Fevre; Graeme D Anderson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Effect of monitors on approximal caries detection in digital radiographs--standard versus precalibrated DICOM part 14 displays: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Kristina Hellén-Halme; Mats Nilsson; Arne Petersson
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod       Date:  2009-02-06

9.  Quality of 'commercial-off-the-shelf' (COTS) monitors displaying dental radiographs.

Authors:  D J McIlgorm; C Lawinski; S Ng; J P McNulty
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 1.626

10.  Could standardizing "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) monitors to the DICOM part 14: GSDF improve the presentation of dental images? A visual grading characteristics analysis.

Authors:  D J McIlgorm; C Lawinski; S Ng; J P McNulty
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 2.419

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effect of display type, DICOM calibration and room illuminance in bitewing radiographs.

Authors:  Soili Kallio-Pulkkinen; Sisko Huumonen; Marianne Haapea; Esa Liukkonen; Annina Sipola; Osmo Tervonen; Miika T Nieminen
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Viewing your digital radiographs: which monitor is best?

Authors:  D McIlgorm
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 1.626

3.  TSR guidelines for the practice of teleradiology: 2021 update.

Authors:  Mustafa N Özmen; Oğuz Dicle; Utku Şenol; Üstün Aydıngöz
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 2.630

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.