Correlation between model observer and human observer performance in CT imaging when lesion location is uncertain

The purpose of this study is to investigate how well model observer can correlate with human observer in the lesion detection and localization task when the location of lesion is uncertain in CT imaging. A 35 × 26 cm oblong-shaped water phantom was scanned with and without two cylindrical rods (3 mm and 5 mm diameters) to simulate lesions with - 15HU contrast. Scans were repeated 100 times with the rods and 100 times without for each of 4 dose levels. Signal and background images were generated by selecting ROIs with 128x128 pixels, with the location of signal in each ROI randomly distributed. Human observer studies were conducted as three medical physicists identified the presence or absence of lesion, indicated the lesion location in each image and scored confidence level with a 6-point scale. ROC curves were fitted and area under curve (AUC) was calculated. The same data set was also analyzed using a Channelized Hottelling model observer with Gabor channels. Internal noise was added to the test variables for model observer study. AUC of ROC and LROC curves were calculated using non-parametric approach. The performance of human observer and model observer was compared. The Peason's product-moment correlation coefficients were 0.994 and 0.998 for 3mm and 5mm diameter lesions in ROC analysis and 0.987 and 0.999 in LROC analysis, indicating that model observer performance was highly correlated with the human observer performance for different size of lesions and different dose levels when signal location is uncertain. These results provide the potential of using model observer that correlates with human observer to assess CT image quality, optimize scanning protocol and reduce radiation dose.

[1]  James G. Mainprize,et al.  An Observer Model for Lesion Detectability in Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[2]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[3]  H.H. Barrett,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993, 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[4]  Jeffrey H Siewerdsen,et al.  Comparison of model and human observer performance for detection and discrimination tasks using dual-energy x-ray images. , 2008, Medical physics.

[5]  L. Tanoue Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure , 2009 .

[6]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Adaptive detection mechanisms in globally statistically nonstationary-oriented noise. , 2006, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[7]  Matt A. King,et al.  Channelized hotelling and human observer correlation for lesion detection in hepatic SPECT imaging. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Performance evaluation of a modular gamma camera using a detectability index. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[10]  D. DeLong,et al.  Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis. , 2007, Medical physics.

[11]  Adam Wunderlich,et al.  Image covariance and lesion detectability in direct fan-beam x-ray computed tomography , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  James H Thrall,et al.  Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. , 2010, Radiology.

[13]  P F Judy,et al.  LESION DETECTION AND SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO IN CT IMAGES , 1981, Medical physics.

[14]  H H Barrett,et al.  Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[15]  R M Nishikawa,et al.  Task-based assessment of breast tomosynthesis: effect of acquisition parameters and quantum noise. , 2010, Medical physics.

[16]  M F McNitt-Gray,et al.  Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: part II. Noise power spectra and signal to noise , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  C. Metz,et al.  "Proper" Binormal ROC Curves: Theory and Maximum-Likelihood Estimation. , 1999, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[18]  H. Barrett,et al.  Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[19]  C. McCollough,et al.  Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. , 2009, Imaging in medicine.

[20]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Quantitative imaging in breast tomosynthesis and CT: comparison of detection and estimation task performance. , 2010, Medical physics.

[21]  Harold L. Kundel,et al.  Handbook of Medical Imaging, Volume 1. Physics and Psychophysics , 2000 .

[22]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Anatomical background and generalized detectability in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT. , 2010, Medical physics.

[23]  R. Swensson Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. , 1996, Medical physics.

[24]  M. Dylan Tisdall,et al.  Using Human and Model Performance to Compare MRI Reconstructions , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[25]  D. C. Barber,et al.  Medical Imaging-The Assessment of Image Quality , 1996 .

[26]  Jay Bartroff,et al.  Automated computer evaluation and optimization of image compression of x-ray coronary angiograms for signal known exactly detection tasks. , 2003, Optics express.

[27]  Matthew A. Kupinski,et al.  Adaptive SPECT , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.