Comparison of a-Si:H CsI flat-panel digital imaging systems with a CCD-based system, CR systems, and conventional screen-film systems: a contrast-detail phantom study

Rong, John; Shaw, Chris C.; Johnston, Dennis A.; Lemacks, Michael R.; Liu, Xinming; Whitman, Gary J.; Thompson, Stephen K.; Krugh, Kerry T.

doi:10.1117/12.430950

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Visibility was characterized in terms of the detectability of low-contrast targets as a reasonable surrogate for diagnostic tasks involving evaluation of subtle detailed features of medical images. The study used a well-established method for evaluating the performance of imaging systems, 8,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] including medical displays. 18,19 Compared to prior work on the low-contrast detectability of displays, the hallmarks of the current study are the use of ͑1͒ digital radiography images with representative radiographic quantum noise backgrounds, ͑2͒ an automated graphical user interface ͑GUI͒ providing efficient use of the observer's time, and ͑3͒ a new statistical analysis of the observer scores for contrast-detail data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative contrast‐detail study of five medical displaysa)

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to compare the contrast-detail performance of five different commercial liquid crystal displays (LCDs) to other LCD and cathode-ray tube (CRT) displays for medical applications. A contrast-detail phantom, supplemented with 5 in. of acrylic, was imaged on a commercial digital radiographic system using techniques comparable to chest radiography. The phantom design enabled observer evaluation by a four-alternative forced choice paradigm. The acquired images were independently scored by five observers on five medical display devices: a 5 megapixel monochrome LCD, a 3 megapixel monochrome LCD, a 9 megapixel color LCD, a 5 megapixel monochrome CRT, and a mammographic-grade monochrome CRT. The data were analyzed using the method suggested by the manufacturer based on a nearest neighbor correction technique. They were further analyzed using a logistic regression response model with a natural threshold using an overall chi-square test for display type followed by pairwise comparisons for individual display performance. The differences between the display devices were small. The standard analysis of the results based on the manufacturer-recommended method did not yield any statistically discernible trend among displays. The logistic regression analysis, however, indicated that the 5 megapixel monochrome LCD was statistically significantly (p <0.0001) superior to the others, followed by the 3 megapixel monochrome LCD (p<0.0001). The three other displays exhibited lower but generally similar performance characteristics. The findings suggest that 5 and 3 megapixel monochrome LCDs provide comparable but subtly superior contrast detectability than other tested displays, with the former performing slightly better in the detection of subtle and fine details.

show abstract