OBJECTIVES: To determine if a relationship exists between low contrast detail (LCD) detectability using the CDRAD 2.0 phantom, visual measures of image quality (IQ) and simulated lesion visibility (LV) when performing digital chest radiography (CXR). METHODS: Using a range of acquisition parameters, a CDRAD 2.0 phantom was used to acquire a set of images with different levels of image quality. LCD detectability using the CDRAD 2.0 phantom, represented by an image quality figure inverse (IQFinv) metric, was determined using the phantom analyser software. A Lungman chest phantom was loaded with two simulated lesions, of different sizes/placed in different locations, and was imaged using the same acquisition factors as the CDRAD 2.0 phantom. A relative visual grading analysis (VGA) was used by seven observers for IQ and LV evaluation of the Lungman images. Correlations between IQFinv, IQ and LV were investigated. RESULTS: Pearson's correlation demonstrated a strong positive correlation (r = 0.91; p < 0.001) between the IQ and the IQFinv. Spearman's correlation showed a good positive correlation (r = 0.79; p < 0.001) and (r = 0.68; p < 0.001) between the IQFinv and the LV for the first lesion (left upper lobe) and the second lesion (right middle lobe), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From results presented in this study, the automated evaluation of LCD detectability using CDRAD 2.0 phantom is likely to be a suitable option for IQ and LV evaluation in digital CXR optimisation studies. Advances in knowledge: This research establishes the potential of the CDRAD 2.0 phantom in digital CXR optimisation studies.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if a relationship exists between low contrast detail (LCD) detectability using the CDRAD 2.0 phantom, visual measures of image quality (IQ) and simulated lesion visibility (LV) when performing digital chest radiography (CXR). METHODS: Using a range of acquisition parameters, a CDRAD 2.0 phantom was used to acquire a set of images with different levels of image quality. LCD detectability using the CDRAD 2.0 phantom, represented by an image quality figure inverse (IQFinv) metric, was determined using the phantom analyser software. A Lungman chest phantom was loaded with two simulated lesions, of different sizes/placed in different locations, and was imaged using the same acquisition factors as the CDRAD 2.0 phantom. A relative visual grading analysis (VGA) was used by seven observers for IQ and LV evaluation of the Lungman images. Correlations between IQFinv, IQ and LV were investigated. RESULTS: Pearson's correlation demonstrated a strong positive correlation (r = 0.91; p < 0.001) between the IQ and the IQFinv. Spearman's correlation showed a good positive correlation (r = 0.79; p < 0.001) and (r = 0.68; p < 0.001) between the IQFinv and the LV for the first lesion (left upper lobe) and the second lesion (right middle lobe), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From results presented in this study, the automated evaluation of LCD detectability using CDRAD 2.0 phantom is likely to be a suitable option for IQ and LV evaluation in digital CXR optimisation studies. Advances in knowledge: This research establishes the potential of the CDRAD 2.0 phantom in digital CXR optimisation studies.
Authors: Jin Mo Goo; Jung-Gi Im; Hyun Ju Lee; Myung Jin Chung; Joon Beom Seo; Hyae Young Kim; Yu-Jin Lee; Joon-Won Kang; Jong Hyo Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Magnus Båth; Markus Håkansson; Sara Börjesson; Susanne Kheddache; Anna Grahn; François O Bochud; Francis R Verdun; Lars Gunnar Månsson Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2005 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: B Lanhede; M Båth; S Kheddache; P Sund; L Björneld; M Widell; A Almén; J Besjakov; S Mattsson; A Tingberg; C Herrmann; W Panzer; M Zankl; L G Månsson Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Maryam Jessop; John D Thompson; Joanne Coward; Audun Sanderud; José Jorge; Martijn de Groot; Luís Lança; Peter Hogg Journal: J Nucl Med Technol Date: 2015-01-22
Authors: Agnes M F Fausto; M C Lopes; M C de Sousa; Tânia A C Furquim; Anderson W Mol; Fermin G Velasco Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Klaus Bacher; Peter Smeets; Kris Bonnarens; An De Hauwere; Koenraad Verstraete; Hubert Thierens Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Julie Cooke; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young Journal: Phys Med Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 2.685