Literature DB >> 29671208

Different pixel pitch and maximum luminance of medical grade displays may result in different evaluations of digital radiography images.

Alberto Laffranchi1, Calogero Cicero2, Manuela Lualdi3, Chiara M Ciniselli4, Giuseppina Calareso1, Stefano Canestrini2, Francesca G Greco1, Enrico Alberioli2, Claudia Cavatorta5, Alessandro Guarise2, Emanuele Pignoli5, Maddalena Plebani4, Davide Scaramuzza1, Claudio Siciliano6, Paolo Verderio4, Alfonso Marchianò1.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the effects of display pixel pitch and maximum luminance on intra- and inter-observer reproducibility and observer performance when evaluating chest lesions and bone fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multi-institutional study for a retrospective interpretation of selected digital radiography images. Overall, 82 images were selected by senior radiologists, including 50 cases of chest lesions and 32 cases of bone fractures. These images were displayed at two pixel pitches (0.212 and 0.165 mm size pixels) and two maximum luminance values (250 and 500 cd/m2) and reviewed twice by senior and junior radiologists. All the observers had to indicate the likelihood of the presence of the lesions and to rate the relative confidence of their assessment. Cohen Kappa statistic was computed to estimate the reproducibility in correctly identifying lesions; for multi-reader-multi-case (MRMC) analysis, weighted Jackknife Alternative Free-response Receiver Operating Characteristic (wJAFROC) statistical tools was applied.
RESULTS: The intra-radiologist and inter-observer reproducibility values were the highest for the 0.165 mm size pixel at 500 cd/m2 display, for both chest lesions and bone fractures evaluations. As regards chest lesions, observer performances were significantly greater with 0.165 mm size pixel display at 500 cd/m2 than with lower maximum luminance and/or larger pixel pitch displays. Concerning bone fractures, the performance obtained with 0.212 mm size pixel display at 250 cd/m2 was statistically lower than that obtained with 0.165 mm sixe pixel display at 500 cd/m2.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that an increased maximum luminance level and a decreased pixel pitch of medical-grade display improve the accuracy of detecting both chest lesions and bone fractures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Digital radiography images; Liquid crystal display; Medical grade display; ROC curve; Radiographic image interpretation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29671208     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-018-0891-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  14 in total

1.  Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray-tube monitors in brain computed tomography.

Authors:  Gerald Pärtan; Rudolf Mayrhofer; Michael Urban; Manfred Wassipaul; Ludwig Pichler; Walter Hruby
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-02-19       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs.

Authors:  Jin Mo Goo; Ja-Young Choi; Jung-Gi Im; Hyun Ju Lee; Myung Jin Chung; Daehee Han; Seong Ho Park; Jong Hyo Kim; Sang-Hee Nam
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-07-23       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis: an empirical comparison of five methods.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Sergey V Beiden; Kevin S Berbaum; Stephen L Hillis; Hemant Ishwaran; Hae Hiang Song; Robert F Wagner
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Influence of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) with different resolutions on the detection of pulmonary nodules: an observer performance study.

Authors:  Jiandong Yin; Qiyong Guo; Xianzheng Sha; Xiaoming Wang; Zaiming Lu; Wei Zhang; Jun Zhang; Yong Yue; Aijun Lin; Changwei Ding
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; Aldo Badano; Dev Chakraborty; Ken Compton; Craig Cornelius; Kevin Corrigan; Michael J Flynn; Bradley Hemminger; Nick Hangiandreou; Jeffrey Johnson; Donna M Moxley-Stevens; William Pavlicek; Hans Roehrig; Lois Rutz; Jeffrey Shepard; Robert A Uzenoff; Jihong Wang; Charles E Willis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-02-10       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Utility as a rationale for choosing observer performance assessment paradigms for detection tasks in medical imaging.

Authors:  Adam Wunderlich; Craig K Abbey
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  How Does the Display Luminance Level Affect Detectability of Breast Microcalcifications and Spiculated Lesions in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) Images?

Authors:  Claudio Ferranti; Alessandra Primolevo; Francesco Cartia; Claudia Cavatorta; Chiara Maura Ciniselli; Manuela Lualdi; Silvia Meroni; Emanuele Pignoli; Maddalena Plebani; Claudio Siciliano; Paolo Verderio; Gianfranco Scaperrotta
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Detection of cervical spine fracture on computed radiography images a monitor resolution study.

Authors:  Omer Awan; Nabile M Safdar; Khan M Siddiqui; Ryan Moffitt; Eliot L Siegel
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation.

Authors:  Rachel J Toomey; John T Ryan; Mark F McEntee; Michael G Evanoff; Dev P Chakraborty; Jonathan P McNulty; David J Manning; Edel M Thomas; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.