Clinical evaluation of new workflow-efficient image processing for digital radiography

An observer study was conducted on a randomly selected sampling of 152 digital projection radiographs of varying body parts obtained from four medical institutions for the purpose of assessing a new workflow-efficient imageprocessing framework. Five rendering treatments were compared to measure the performance of a new processing algorithm against the control condition. A key feature of the new image processing is the capability of processing without specifying the exam. Randomized image pairs were presented at a softcopy workstation equipped with two diagnosticquality flat-panel monitors. Five board-certified radiologists and one radiology resident independently reviewed each image pair blinded to the specific processing used and provided a diagnostic-quality rating using a subjective rank-order scale for each image. In addition, a relative preference rating was used to indicate rendering preference. Aggregate results indicate that the new fully automated processing is preferred (sign test for median = 0 (α = 0.05): p < 0.0001 preference in favor of the control).

[1]  Xiaohui Wang,et al.  Comparison of a-Se direct-conversion and CsI(Tl) indirect-conversion flat-panel digital detectors: a clinical assessment of image quality for general radiography applications , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[2]  F. E. Satterthwaite.  An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. , 1946, Biometrics.

[3]  J. Wandtke.  Bedside chest radiography. , 1994, Radiology.

[4]  F R Verdun,et al.  Performance comparison of an active matrix flat panel imager, computed radiography system, and a screen-film system at four standard radiation qualities. , 2005, Medical physics.

[5]  H. Jäger,et al.  Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  J S Uebersax,et al.  Modeling approaches for the analysis of observer agreement. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[7]  Ulrich Neitzel,et al.  Status and prospects of digital detector technology for CR and DR. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[8]  Richard L. Van Metter,et al.  New automatic tone-scale method for computed radiography , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[9]  David H. Foos,et al.  Enhancement method that provides direct and independent control of fundamental attributes of image quality for radiographic imagery , 2004, Medical Imaging: Image-Guided Procedures.

[10]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Recent advances in chest radiography. , 2006, Radiology.

[11]  Richard L. Van Metter,et al.  Enhanced latitude for digital projection radiography , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[12]  Kenji Kishimoto,et al.  Clinical evaluation of digital radiography based on a large-area cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector compared with screen-film radiography for skeletal system and abdomen , 2002, European Radiology.

[13]  Hui Luo,et al.  Automatic and exam-type independent algorithm for the segmentation and extraction of foreground, background, and anatomy regions in digital radiographic images , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[14]  M. Sonoda,et al.  Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. , 1983, Radiology.