Imaging 3.0: What Is It?

Ellenbogen, Paul H.

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.02.011

Cited by 112 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Medical Physics 3.0 (MP3.0)13 (and its earlier, more narrowly defined moniker of Medical Physics 2.08, 9, 10, 11) is an emerging concept within the AAPM and medical physics profession that is incidentally in step with the American College of Radiology's Imaging 3.0™ 14. The overall purpose of the MP3.0 initiative is to modernize imaging physics specialties, to reestablish relevance to clinical performance, and to improve efficiency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical physics 3.0 versus 1.0: A case study in digital radiography quality control

Carver

Willis

Stauduhar

et al. 2018

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe study illustrates how a renewed approach to medical physics, Medical Physics 3.0 (MP3.0), can identify performance decrement of digital radiography (DR) systems when conventional Medical Physics 1.0 (MP1.0) methods fail.Methods MP1.0 tests included traditional annual tests plus the manufacturer's automated Quality Assurance Procedures (QAP) of a DR system before and after a radiologist's image quality (IQ) complaint repeated after service intervention. Further analysis was conducted using nontraditional MP3.0 tests including longitudinal review of QAP results from a 15‐yr database, exposure‐dependent signal‐to‐noise (SNR 2), clinical IQ, and correlation with the institutional service database. Clinical images were analyzed in terms of IQ metrics by the Duke University Clinical Imaging Physics Group using previously validated software.ResultsTraditional metrics did not indicate discrepant system performance at any time. QAP reported a decrease in contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) after detector replacement, but remained above the manufacturer's action limit. Clinical images showed increased lung noise (Ln), mediastinum noise (Mn), and subdiaphragm‐lung contrast (SLc), and decreased lung gray level (Lgl) following detector replacement. After detector recalibration, QAP CNR improved, but did not return to previous levels. Lgl and SLc no longer significantly differed from before detector recalibration; however, Ln and Mn remained significantly different. Exposure‐dependent SNR 2 documented the detector operating within acceptable limits 9 yr previously but subsequently becoming miscalibrated sometime before four prior annual tests. Service records revealed catastrophic failure of the computer containing the original detector calibration from 11 yr prior. It is likely that the incorrect calibration backup file was uploaded at that time.Conclusions MP1.0 tests failed to detect substandard system performance, but MP3.0 methods determined the root cause of the problem. MP3.0 exploits the wealth of data with more sensitive performance indicators. Data analytics are powerful tools whose proper application could facilitate early intervention in degraded system performance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical physics 3.0 versus 1.0: A case study in digital radiography quality control

Carver

Willis

Stauduhar

et al. 2018

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They will be the specialty's future leaders and will determine if radiologists remain relevant and valued. The ACR's Imaging 3.0Ô initiative was created as a valuable resource to help guide our specialty through these changing times and urges radiologists to "participate actively in patient care as an engaged member of the healthcare team" [5]. As of yet, specific strategies have not focused on preparing residents for these new challenges, and they may be left ill prepared for an era of patient-centered radiology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Centered Clinical Training in Radiology

Perry

Kwan

Bhargava

2015

Journal of the American College of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Simply excluding a follow-up recommendation may not be sufficient, because without guidance many clinicians will order additional tests. Avoiding unnecessary imaging while simultaneously encouraging necessary imaging is the core tenet of Imaging 3.0, the ACR initiative to improve the practice of radiology [6].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Follow-up recommendations: the challenge, the opportunity and our future

Heller

2017

Pediatr Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imaging 3.0: What Is It?

Cited by 112 publications

References 0 publications

Medical physics 3.0 versus 1.0: A case study in digital radiography quality control

Medical physics 3.0 versus 1.0: A case study in digital radiography quality control

Patient-Centered Clinical Training in Radiology

Follow-up recommendations: the challenge, the opportunity and our future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About