4 resultados para Observers
em Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa - Portugal
Resumo:
Purpose: To evaluate if physical measures of noise predict image quality at high and low noise levels. Method: Twenty-four images were acquired on a DR system using a Pehamed DIGRAD phantom at three kVp settings (60, 70 and 81) across a range of mAs values. The image acquisition setup consisted of 14 cm of PMMA slabs with the phantom placed in the middle at 120 cm SID. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and Contrast-tonoise ratio (CNR) were calculated for each of the images using ImageJ software and 14 observers performed image scoring. Images were scored according to the observer`s evaluation of objects visualized within the phantom. Results: The R2 values of the non-linear relationship between objective visibility score and CNR (60kVp R2 = 0.902; 70Kvp R2 = 0.913; 80kVp R2 = 0.757) demonstrate a better fit for all 3 kVp settings than the linear R2 values. As CNR increases for all kVp settings the Object Visibility also increases. The largest increase for SNR at low exposure values (up to 2 mGy) is observed at 60kVp, when compared with 70 or 81kVp.CNR response to exposure is similar. Pearson r was calculated to assess the correlation between Score, OV, SNR and CNR. None of the correlations reached a level of statistical significance (p>0.01). Conclusion: For object visibility and SNR, tube potential variations may play a role in object visibility. Higher energy X-ray beam settings give lower SNR but higher object visibility. Object visibility and CNR at all three tube potentials are similar, resulting in a strong positive relationship between CNR and object visibility score. At low doses the impact of radiographic noise does not have a strong influence on object visibility scores because in noisy images objects could still be identified.
Resumo:
There are few professions in which visual acuity is as important as it is to radiologists. The diagnostic decision making process is composed of a number of events (detection or observation, interpretation and reporting), where the detection phase is subject to a number of physical and psychological phenomena that are critical to the process. Visual acuity is one phenomenon that has often been overlooked, and there is very little research assessing the impact of reduced visual acuity on diagnostic performance. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reduced visual acuity on an observer’s ability to detect simulated nodules in an anthropomorphic chest phantom.
Resumo:
Purpose - In this study we aim to validate a method to assess the impact of reduced visual function and observer performance concurrently with a nodule detection task. Materials and methods - Three consultant radiologists completed a nodule detection task under three conditions: without visual defocus (0.00 Dioptres; D), and with two different magnitudes of visual defocus (−1.00 D and −2.00 D). Defocus was applied with lenses and visual function was assessed prior to each image evaluation. Observers evaluated the same cases on each occasion; this comprised of 50 abnormal cases containing 1–4 simulated nodules (5, 8, 10 and 12 mm spherical diameter, 100 HU) placed within a phantom, and 25 normal cases (images containing no nodules). Data was collected under the free-response paradigm and analysed using Rjafroc. A difference in nodule detection performance would be considered significant at p < 0.05. Results - All observers had acceptable visual function prior to beginning the nodule detection task. Visual acuity was reduced to an unacceptable level for two observers when defocussed to −1.00 D and for one observer when defocussed to −2.00 D. Stereoacuity was unacceptable for one observer when defocussed to −2.00 D. Despite unsatisfactory visual function in the presence of defocus we were unable to find a statistically significant difference in nodule detection performance (F(2,4) = 3.55, p = 0.130). Conclusion - A method to assess visual function and observer performance is proposed. In this pilot evaluation we were unable to detect any difference in nodule detection performance when using lenses to reduce visual function.
Resumo:
Background - Image blurring in Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) is reported to be a problem within many UK breast screening units resulting in significant proportion of technical repeats/recalls. Our study investigates monitors of differing pixel resolution, and whether there is a difference in blurring detection between a 2.3 MP technical review monitor and a 5MP standard reporting monitor. Methods - Simulation software was created to induce different magnitudes of blur on 20 artifact free FFDM screening images. 120 blurred and non-blurred images were randomized and displayed on the 2.3 and 5MP monitors; they were reviewed by 28 trained observers. Monitors were calibrated to the DICOM Grayscale Standard Display Function. T-test was used to determine whether significant differences exist in blurring detection between the monitors. Results - The blurring detection rate on the 2.3MP monitor for 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1 mm blur was 46, 59, 66, 77and 78% respectively; and on the 5MP monitor 44, 70, 83 , 96 and 98%. All the non-motion images were identified correctly. A statistical difference (p <0.01) in the blurring detection rate between the two monitors was demonstrated. Conclusions - Given the results of this study and knowing that monitors as low as 1 MP are used in clinical practice, we speculate that technical recall/repeat rates because of blurring could be reduced if higher resolution monitors are used for technical review at the time of imaging. Further work is needed to determine monitor minimum specification for visual blurring detection.