Advanced

Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs

Sund, P.; Herrmann, C.; Tingberg, Anders LU ; Kheddache, S.; Månsson, L.G.; Almén, A and Mattsson, Sören LU (2000) Medical Imaging 2000: Image Perception and Performance In Proceedings of SPIE 3981. p.251-258
Abstract
A set of 15 analog chest images was digitized with a high performance scanner and manipulated in terms of noise and resolution to yield three sets of images; the original plus two with different noise and resolution properties. These sets were evaluated with Visual Grading Analysis (VGA) where the observer rates the visibility of certain normal anatomical structures (as described by the European Quality Criteria) compared to a reference image. One of the non-manipulated digitized images was used in an ROC-related method – the Free response Forced Error experiment. Simulated lesions of different contrast and size were randomly superimposed on 50 copies of this image. The images were then manipulated in the same way as the images used for... (More)
A set of 15 analog chest images was digitized with a high performance scanner and manipulated in terms of noise and resolution to yield three sets of images; the original plus two with different noise and resolution properties. These sets were evaluated with Visual Grading Analysis (VGA) where the observer rates the visibility of certain normal anatomical structures (as described by the European Quality Criteria) compared to a reference image. One of the non-manipulated digitized images was used in an ROC-related method – the Free response Forced Error experiment. Simulated lesions of different contrast and size were randomly superimposed on 50 copies of this image. The images were then manipulated in the same way as the images used for VGA. All observations were done by a group of seven expert radiologists from six different European countries and all images were printed back to film before evaluation. The ranking of the image manipulations was the same for the two methods. Although a strong correlation cannot be predicted with only three sets of images, it is encouraging that the simpler VGA study in some cases might be used as a replacement for the more time- and effort-consuming ROC analysis. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
in
Proceedings of SPIE
volume
3981
pages
251 - 258
publisher
SPIE
conference name
Medical Imaging 2000: Image Perception and Performance
external identifiers
  • Scopus:0033750456
DOI
10.1117/12.383116
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
63083051-30ca-4658-9af3-19d2e91d5c29 (old id 1296944)
date added to LUP
2009-07-15 13:58:25
date last changed
2016-10-13 04:41:13
@misc{63083051-30ca-4658-9af3-19d2e91d5c29,
  abstract     = {A set of 15 analog chest images was digitized with a high performance scanner and manipulated in terms of noise and resolution to yield three sets of images; the original plus two with different noise and resolution properties. These sets were evaluated with Visual Grading Analysis (VGA) where the observer rates the visibility of certain normal anatomical structures (as described by the European Quality Criteria) compared to a reference image. One of the non-manipulated digitized images was used in an ROC-related method – the Free response Forced Error experiment. Simulated lesions of different contrast and size were randomly superimposed on 50 copies of this image. The images were then manipulated in the same way as the images used for VGA. All observations were done by a group of seven expert radiologists from six different European countries and all images were printed back to film before evaluation. The ranking of the image manipulations was the same for the two methods. Although a strong correlation cannot be predicted with only three sets of images, it is encouraging that the simpler VGA study in some cases might be used as a replacement for the more time- and effort-consuming ROC analysis.},
  author       = {Sund, P. and Herrmann, C. and Tingberg, Anders and Kheddache, S. and Månsson, L.G. and Almén, A and Mattsson, Sören},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {251--258},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0x93031c8)},
  series       = {Proceedings of SPIE},
  title        = {Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.383116},
  volume       = {3981},
  year         = {2000},
}