ViewDEX 2.0: a Java-based DICOM-compatible software for observer performance studies

ViewDEX (Viewer for Digital Evaluation of X-ray images) is a Java-based DICOM-compatible software tool for observer performance studies that can be used to display medical images with simultaneous registration of the observer's response. The current release, ViewDEX 2.0 is a development of ViewDEX 1.0, which was released in 2007. Both versions are designed to run in a Java environment and do not require any special installation. For example, the program can be located on a memory stick or stand alone hard drive and be run from there. ViewDEX is managed and configured by editing property files, which are plain text files where users, tasks (questions, definitions, etc.) and functionality (WW/WL, PAN, ZOOM, etc.) are defined. ViewDEX reads all common DICOM image formats and the images can be stored in any location connected to the computer. ViewDEX 2.0 is designed so that the user in a simple way can alter if the questions presented to the observers are related to localization or not, enabling e.g. free-response ROC, standard ROC and visual grading studies, as well as combinations of these, to be conducted in a fast and efficient way. The software can also be used for bench marking and for educational purposes. The results from each observer are saved in a log file, which can be exported for further analysis. The software is freely available for non-commercial purposes.

[1]  Magnus Båth,et al.  ViewDEX: A java-based software for presentation and evaluation of medical images in observer performance studies , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[2]  S. Mattsson,et al.  The use of reference image criteria in X-ray diagnostics: an application for the optimisation of lumbar spine radiographs , 2004, European Radiology.

[3]  M Båth,et al.  The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria. , 2002, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: introduction to the RADIUS chest trial. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[5]  J. Vikgren,et al.  High-resolution computed tomography with single-slice computed tomography and 16-channel multidetector computed tomography: a comparison regarding visibility and motion artifacts , 2007, Acta radiologica.

[6]  M Båth,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a dual-side readout technique computed radiography system in chest radiography of premature neonates , 2008, Acta radiologica.

[7]  M. Ruschin,et al.  A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[8]  Patrik Sund,et al.  Evaluation of Soft-copy Reporting for Three Digital Systems for Chest Imaging Using New European Quality Criteria , 2000 .

[9]  M Ruschin,et al.  Threshold pixel size for shape determination of microcalcifications in digital mammography: a pilot study. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[10]  M Båth,et al.  High-resolution computed tomography with 16-row mdct: a comparison regarding visibility and motion artifacts of dose-modulated thin slices and “step and shoot” images , 2008, Acta radiologica.

[11]  E. Samei,et al.  Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. , 2007, Medical physics.

[12]  Magnus Båth,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of system noise. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[13]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: summary of the RADIUS chest trial. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[14]  Patrik Sund,et al.  Evaluation of displays for medical x-ray applications using observer performance , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[15]  Christoph Hoeschen,et al.  Investigation of image components affecting the detection of lung nodules in digital chest radiography , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[16]  M Ruschin,et al.  Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[17]  S. Kheddache,et al.  In search of optimum chest radiography techniques. , 1993, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[19]  M Zankl,et al.  The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[20]  Patrik Sund,et al.  Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography , 2004, European Radiology.

[21]  S. Mattsson,et al.  Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[22]  Michael Sandborg,et al.  Comparison of two methods for evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine radiographs , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[23]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings , 2008, European Radiology.

[24]  U. Tylén,et al.  Digital Chest Radiography with a Large Image Intensifier , 1989, Acta radiologica.

[25]  Lars G. Mansson,et al.  Optimization and evaluation of an image intensifier TV system for digital chest imaging , 1991, Medical Imaging.

[26]  Patrik Sund,et al.  Evaluation of image quality of a new CCD-based system for chest imaging , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[27]  M Ruschin,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[28]  Patrik Sund,et al.  What is worse: decreased spatial resolution or increased noise? , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[29]  記載無し.  DIGITAL CHEST RADIOGRAPHY WITH A LARGE IMAGE INTENSIFIER Evaluation of diagnostic performance and patient exposure, L. G. MANSSON et al., Acta Radiologica, 30(4), 337〜342, (1989) , 1990 .

[30]  J E Angelhed,et al.  Digital chest radiography: should images be presented in negative or positive mode? , 1991, European journal of radiology.

[31]  D R Dance,et al.  Demonstration of correlations between clinical and physical image quality measures in chest and lumbar spine screen-film radiography. , 2001, The British journal of radiology.

[32]  Michael Sandborg,et al.  Evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine images: a comparison between FFE and VGA. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[33]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Recent advances in observer performance methodology: jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC). , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[34]  Magnus Båth,et al.  Evaluation of chest tomosynthesis for the detection of pulmonary nodules: effect of clinical experience and comparison with chest radiography , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[35]  Jonny Hansson,et al.  An optimisation strategy in a digital environment applied to neonatal chest imaging. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[36]  J E Angelhed,et al.  Effects of optimization and image processing in digital chest radiography: an ROC study with an anthropomorphic phantom. , 1991, European journal of radiology.

[37]  U. Tylén,et al.  Image quality for five modern chest radiography techniques: a modified FROC study with an anthropomorphic chest phantom , 1999, European Radiology.

[38]  Michael Sandborg,et al.  Inter-observer variation in masked and unmasked images for quality evaluation of clinical radiographs. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[39]  Dev P. Chakraborty,et al.  Potential for lower absorbed dose in digital mammography: a JAFROC experiment using clinical hybrid images with simulated dose reduction , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[40]  Christoph Hoeschen,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of anatomical noise. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[41]  Magnus Båth,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: part of image background acting as pure noise. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[42]  Magnus Båth,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of nodule location. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[43]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Search for optimal tube voltage for image plate radiography , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[44]  Patrik Sund,et al.  Evaluation of lumbar spine images with added pathology , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[45]  S Kheddache,et al.  Digital chest radiography with a large image intensifier. An ROC study with an anthropomorphic phantom. , 1989, European journal of radiology.

[46]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Influence of the characteristic curve on the clinical image quality and patient absorbed dose in lumbar spine radiography , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.