VIEWDEX: an efficient and easy-to-use software for observer performance studies.

The development of investigation techniques, image processing, workstation monitors, analysing tools etc. within the field of radiology is vast, and the need for efficient tools in the evaluation and optimisation process of image and investigation quality is important. ViewDEX (Viewer for Digital Evaluation of X-ray images) is an image viewer and task manager suitable for research and optimisation tasks in medical imaging. ViewDEX is DICOM compatible and the features of the interface (tasks, image handling and functionality) are general and flexible. The configuration of a study and output (for example, answers given) can be edited in any text editor. ViewDEX is developed in Java and can run from any disc area connected to a computer. It is free to use for non-commercial purposes and can be downloaded from http://www.vgregion.se/sas/viewdex. In the present work, an evaluation of the efficiency of ViewDEX for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) studies, free-response ROC (FROC) studies and visual grading (VG) studies was conducted. For VG studies, the total scoring rate was dependent on the number of criteria per case. A scoring rate of approximately 150 cases h(-1) can be expected for a typical VG study using single images and five anatomical criteria. For ROC and FROC studies using clinical images, the scoring rate was approximately 100 cases h(-1) using single images and approximately 25 cases h(-1) using image stacks ( approximately 50 images case(-1)). In conclusion, ViewDEX is an efficient and easy-to-use software for observer performance studies.

[1]  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.

[2]  M Båth,et al.  Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

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

[4]  John Robinson,et al.  Jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) figures of merit (FOM) help Identify key radiologist characteristics linked to diagnostic efficacy in chest radiology , 2010 .

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

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

[7]  Jonny Hansson,et al.  Optimisation of tube voltage for conventional urography using a Gd2O2S:Tb flat panel detector. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[9]  Jonny Hansson,et al.  The effect of radiation dose reduction on clinical image quality in chest radiography of premature neonates using a dual-side readout technique computed radiography system. , 2010, 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]  Magnus Båth,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of system noise. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[12]  I Andersson,et al.  The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[13]  D. Blanc,et al.  European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images , 1998 .

[14]  Magnus Båth,et al.  ViewDEX 2.0: a Java-based DICOM-compatible software for observer performance studies , 2009, Medical Imaging.

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

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

[17]  Kevin S. Berbaum,et al.  WorkstationJ: workstation emulation software for medical image perception and technology evaluation research , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[18]  M Båth,et al.  Effect of clinical experience of chest tomosynthesis on detection of pulmonary nodules , 2009, Acta radiologica.

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

[20]  Introduction and Overview 1.1 Introduction , 2001 .

[21]  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.

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

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

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

[25]  M Båth,et al.  Dose optimisation of double-contrast barium enema examinations. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[27]  Magnus Båth,et al.  Harmonisation of the appearance of digital radiographs from different vendors by means of common external image processing. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[28]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Impact of dose on observer performance in breast tomosynthesis using breast specimens , 2008, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[29]  Mikael Hellström,et al.  Evaluation of image quality and lesion perception by human readers on 3D CT colonography: comparison of standard and low radiation dose , 2010, European Radiology.

[30]  K. Ledenius,et al.  Effect of tube current on diagnostic image quality in paediatric cerebral multidetector CT images. , 2009, The British journal of radiology.

[31]  Patrik Sund,et al.  Evaluation of subjective assessment of the low-contrast visibility in constancy control of computed tomography. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.