The impact of image processing algorithms on digital radiography of patients with metalic hip implants

Tsalafoutas, Ioannis A.; Kasviki, K.; Samartzis, Alexandros; Trimmis, K.; Gkeli, Myrsini

doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.07.015

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The processing algorithm considers that all anatomical structures of interest, must be simultaneously visualized by radiologists, even though radiologists may occasionally use manual window width and window level adjustments to better visualize certain parts of the image. However, it has been seen that intense post‐processing aiming to increase the visual contrast may inadvertently misrepresent the actual clinical image 3 . This may be the reason why some radiography and mammography systems always provide the raw images along with the clinical ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it has been seen that intense post‐processing aiming to increase the visual contrast may inadvertently misrepresent the actual clinical image. 3 This may be the reason why some radiography and mammography systems always provide the raw images along with the clinical ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Thus, it is not a surprise that in clinical practice when different examination protocols are used to image the same anatomical structures or different post-processing protocols are applied onto the same raw image, different image quality (IQ) levels are derived. [2][3][4][5] This is true both for patient radiographs and for radiographic images of physical phantoms used for IQ evaluation. The physical phantoms used for IQ evaluation typically contain various structures to assess spatial resolution, low contrast, and dynamic contrast.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Post‐processing allows the original image to be processed in various ways—depending on the anatomical area imaged and the respective diagnostic task—to adjust the latitude (dynamic contrast), contrast and spatial resolution, so that the visibility of various anatomical structures and consequently the diagnostic confidence of the interpreting radiologist are enhanced 1 . Thus, it is not a surprise that in clinical practice when different examination protocols are used to image the same anatomical structures or different post‐processing protocols are applied onto the same raw image, different image quality (IQ) levels are derived 2–5 . This is true both for patient radiographs and for radiographic images of physical phantoms used for IQ evaluation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for‐processing and for‐presentation images

Tsalafoutas,

AlKhazzam,

Tsapaki

et al. 2024

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate the impact of digital image post‐processing algorithms on various image quality (IQ) metrics of radiographic images under different exposure conditions.MethodsA custom‐made phantom constructed according to the instructions given in the IAEA Human Health Series No.39 publication was used, along with the respective software that automatically calculates various IQ metrics. Images with various exposure parameters were acquired with a digital radiography unit, which for each acquisition produces two images: one for‐processing (raw) and one for‐presentation (clinical). Various examination protocols were used, which incorporate diverse post‐processing algorithms. The IQ metrics’ values (IQ‐scores) obtained were analyzed to investigate the effects of increasing incident air kerma (IAK) on the image receptor, tube potential (kVp), additional filtration, and examination protocol on image quality, and the differences between image type (raw or clinical).ResultsThe IQ‐scores were consistent for repeated identical exposures for both raw and clinical images. The effect that changes in exposure parameters and examination protocol had on IQ‐scores were different depending on the IQ metric and image type. The expected positive effect that increasing IAK and decreasing tube potential should have on IQ was clearly exhibited in two IQ metrics only, the signal difference‐to‐noise‐ratio (SDNR) and the detectability index (d’), for both image types. No effect of additional filtration on any of the IQ metrics was detected on images of either type. An interesting finding of the study was that for all different image acquisition selections the d’ scores were larger in raw images, whereas the other IQ metrics were larger in clinical images for most of the cases.ConclusionsSince IQ‐scores of raw and their respective clinical images may be largely different, the same type of image should be consistently used for monitoring IQ constancy and when results from different X‐ray systems are compared.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for‐processing and for‐presentation images

Tsalafoutas,

AlKhazzam,

Tsapaki

et al. 2024

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous radiography dose optimisation studies used different phantom types including anthropomorphic phantoms [13,14], in-house developed phantoms [10][11][12][13][14][15] and quality control phantoms (e.g. CDRAD phantom and Primus-L phantom) [16,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the performance of digital x-ray systems in pelvis radiography

Jreije,

Krynke,

Gricienė

et al. 2024

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of eight digital radiography systems and to optimise the dose-image quality relationship for digital pelvis radiography. The study involved eight digital radiography systems used for general examinations at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos. An anthropomorphic pelvic phantom (CIRS, US) was used to simulate a patient undergoing clinical pelvis radiography. Dose quantities entrance surface dose, dose area product (DAP) and exposure parameters (kVp, mA, mAs) were measured and the effects on the images were evaluated, considering physical contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and observer-based evaluations as image quality metrics. Increasing the tube voltage by 5 kVp from standard protocol led to a reduction in radiation dose (DAP) by 12%–20% with a slight impact on image quality (CNR decreases by 2%–10%). There was an inter-observer variability in image rating across different equipment (kappa value between 0 and 0.3); however, both observers agreed that increasing kVp up to 85–90 kV had no effect on perceived image quality. The results indicate that optimisation strategies should be tailored specifically for each x-ray system since significant performance differences and wide variations in radiation dose exist across various digital radiography systems used in clinical settings. The use of high kVp can be used for dose optimisation in digital pelvis radiography without compromising image diagnostic accuracy.

show abstract

Evaluation of image quality and patient exposure in fluoroscopy using a phantom: Is there any clinical relevance?

Tsalafoutas

Tsapaki

Triantopoulou

2021

European Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of image processing algorithms on digital radiography of patients with metalic hip implants

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for‐processing and for‐presentation images

Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for‐processing and for‐presentation images

Evaluation of the performance of digital x-ray systems in pelvis radiography

Evaluation of image quality and patient exposure in fluoroscopy using a phantom: Is there any clinical relevance?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About