Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T10:09:07.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Image Quality and Its Clinical Relevance

from Part II - Science of Image Perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

By
Justin Solomon ,
Robert Saunders  and
Ehsan Samei
Edited by
Ehsan Samei  and
Elizabeth A. Krupinski
Ehsan Samei
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center, Durham
Elizabeth A. Krupinski
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques , pp. 197 - 212
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arfken, G.B., Weber, H.J. (1995). Mathematical Methods for Physicists. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, H.H., Yao, J., Rolland, J.P., Myers, K.J. (1993). Model observers for assessment of image quality Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 90, 9758–9765.Google Scholar
Barrett, H.H., Myers, K.J., Hoeschen, C., Kupinski, M.A., Little, M.P. (2015). Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk. Phys Med Biol, 60, R1–R75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beister, M., Kolditz, D., Kalender, W.A. (2012). Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med, 28, 94–108.Google Scholar
Blackman, R.B., Tukey, J.W. (1959). The Measurement of Power Spectra, from the Point of View of Communications Engineering. New York, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Bradford, C.D., Peppler, W.W., Waidelich, J.M. (1999). Use of a slit camera for MTF measurements. Med Phys, 26, 2286–2294.Google Scholar
Brenner, D.J., Hall, E.J. (2007). Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med, 357, 2277–2284.Google Scholar
Dainty, J.C., Shaw, R. (1974). Image Science: Principles, Analysis and Evaluation of Photographic-Type Imaging Processes. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dobbins, J.T. (2000). Image quality metrics for digital systems. In: Beutel, J., Van Metter, R., Kundel, H. (eds.) Handbook of Medical Imaging. Vol. 1: Physics and Psychophysics. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press, pp. 163–222.Google Scholar
Fujita, H., Doi, K., Giger, M.L. (1985). Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 6. MTFs of II-TV digital imaging-systems. Med Phys, 12, 713–720.Google Scholar
Giger, M.L., Doi, K. (1984) Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 1. Modulation transfer-function. Med Phys, 11, 287–295.Google Scholar
Giger, M.L., Doi, K., Metz, C.E. (1984). Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 2. Noise Wiener spectrum. Med Phys, 11, 797–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giger, M.L., Doi, K., Fujita, H. (1986). Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 7. Noise Wiener spectra of II-TV digital imaging-systems. Med Phys, 13, 131–138.Google Scholar
Hwang, S.A., Seo, J.B., Choi, B.K., Do, K.H., Ko, S.M., Lee, S.H., Lee, J.S., Song, J.W., Song, K.S., Lim, T.H. (2003). Liquid-crystal display monitors and cathode-ray tube monitors: a comparison of observer performance in the detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules. Korean J Radiol, 4, 153–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICRU (1995). ICRU report 54: medical imaging – the assessment of image quality. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. J Int Commission Rad Units Meas, 28.Google Scholar
Krupinski, E.A., Johnson, J., Roehrig, H., Nafziger, J., Lubin, J. (2005). On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions. Acad Radiol, 12, 957–964.Google Scholar
Metz, C.E. (2000). Fundamental ROC analysis. In: Beutel, J., Kundel, H.L., Van Metter, R.L. (eds.) Handbook of Medical Imaging. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press, pp. 751–770.Google Scholar
Oschatz, E., Prokop, M., Scharitzer, M., Weber, M., Balassy, C., Schaefer-Prokop, C. (2005). Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions. Eur Radiol, 15, 1472–1476.Google Scholar
Samei, E., Saunders, R.S., Jr., Baker, J.A., Delong, D.M. (2007). Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. Radiology, 243, 396–404.Google Scholar
Saunders, R.S., Samei, E. (2006a). Improving mammographic decision accuracy by incorporating observer ratings with interpretation time. Br J Radiol, 79 Spec No 2, S117–S122.Google Scholar
Saunders, R.S., Samei, E. (2006b). Resolution and noise measurements of five CRT and LCD medical displays. Med Phys, 33, 308–319.Google Scholar
Saunders, R., Samei, E., Hoeschen, C. (2003). Impact of resolution and noise characteristics of digital radiographic detectors on the detectability of lung nodules. SPIE Proc, 5030, 16–25.Google Scholar
Saunders, R.S., Samei, E., Hoeschen, C. (2004). Impact of resolution and noise characteristics of digital radiographic detectors on the detectability of lung nodules. Med Phys, 31, 1603–1613.Google Scholar
Saunders, R.S., Samei, E., Baker, J., Delong, D., Soo, M.S., Walsh, R., Pisano, E., Kuzmiak, C.M., Pavic, D. (2006) Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol, 13, 1317.Google Scholar
Solomon, J., Marin, D., Choudhury, K., Patel, B., Samei, E. (2017). Effect of radiation dose reduction and reconstruction algorithm on image noise, contrast, resolution, and detectability of subtle hypoattenuating liver lesions at multidetector CT: filtered back projection versus a commercial model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm. Radiology, 284, 777–787.Google Scholar
Workman, A., Brettle, D.S. (1997). Physical performance measures of radiographic imaging systems. Dentomaxillofac Rad, 26, 139–146.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×