Comparison of low-contrast detail perception on storage phosphor radiographs and digital flat panel detector images

被引:27
作者
Peer, S
Neitzel, U
Giacomuzzi, SM
Peer, R
Gassner, E
Steingruber, I
Jaschke, W
机构
[1] Univ Innsbruck Hosp, Dept Radiol, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
[2] Philips Med Syst, Hamburg, Germany
关键词
digital radiography; low-contrast perception; observer performance;
D O I
10.1109/42.918474
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
A contrast detail analysis was performed to compare perception of low-contrast details on X-ray images derived from digital storage phosphor radiography and from a nat panel detector system based on a cesium iodide/amorphous silicon matrix. The CDRAD 2.0 phantom was used to perform a comparative contrast detail analysis of a clinical storage phosphor radiography system and an indirect type digital nat panel detector unit. Images were acquired at exposure levels comparable to film speeds of 50/100/200/400 and 800. Four observers evaluated a total of 50 films with respect to the threshold contrast for each detail size. The numbers of correctly identified objects were determined for all image subsets. The overall results show that low-contrast detail perception with digital flat panel detector images is better than with state of the art storage phosphor screens, This is especially true for the low-exposure setting, where a nearly 10% higher correct observation ratio is reached. Given its high detective quantum efficiency the digital flat panel technology based on the cesium iodide scintillator/amorphous silicon matrix is best suited for detection of low-contrast detail structures, which shows its high potential for clinical imaging.
引用
收藏
页码:239 / 242
页数:4
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   A REAL-TIME, FLAT-PANEL, AMORPHOUS-SILICON, DIGITAL X-RAY IMAGER [J].
ANTONUK, LE ;
YORKSTON, J ;
HUANG, WD ;
SIEWERDSEN, JH ;
BOUDRY, JM ;
ELMOHRI, Y ;
MARX, MV .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 1995, 15 (04) :993-1000
[2]   Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography [J].
Aufrichtig, R .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1999, 26 (07) :1349-1358
[3]   COMPARISON OF RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC AND FORCED-CHOICE OBSERVER PERFORMANCE-MEASUREMENT METHODS [J].
BURGESS, AE .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1995, 22 (05) :643-655
[4]   New CsI/a-Si 17" x 17" X-ray flat panel detector provides superior detectivity and immediate direct digital output for General Radiography systems [J].
Chaussat, C ;
Chabbal, J ;
Ducourant, T ;
Spinnler, V ;
Vieux, G ;
Neyret, R .
PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 1998, 3336 :45-56
[5]   Principles of digital radiography with large-area, electronically readable detectors: A review of the basics [J].
Chotas, HG ;
Dobbins, JT ;
Ravin, CE .
RADIOLOGY, 1999, 210 (03) :595-599
[6]   THRESHOLD PERCEPTION PERFORMANCE WITH COMPUTED AND SCREEN-FILM RADIOGRAPHY - IMPLICATIONS FOR CHEST RADIOGRAPHY [J].
DOBBINS, JT ;
RICE, JJ ;
BEAM, CA ;
RAVIN, CE .
RADIOLOGY, 1992, 183 (01) :179-187
[7]   IMAGES, IMAGE QUALITY AND OBSERVER PERFORMANCE - NEW HORIZONS IN RADIOLOGY LECTURE [J].
KUNDEL, HL .
RADIOLOGY, 1979, 132 (02) :265-271
[8]  
MARSHALL NW, 1995, PHYS MED BIOL, V40, P1393
[9]  
Neitzel U., 1997, Medicamundi, V41, P14
[10]   Comparison of low-contrast detail detectability with five different conventional and digital radiographic imaging systems [J].
Neitzel, U ;
Böhm, A ;
Maack, I .
MEDICAL IMAGING 2000: IMAGE PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE, 2000, 3981 :216-223