IEC 61267: Feasibility of type 1100 aluminium and a copper/aluminium combination for RQA beam qualities.

In the course of performance acceptance testing, benchmarking or quality control of X-ray imaging systems, it is sometimes necessary to harden the X-ray beam spectrum. IEC 61267 specifies materials and methods to accomplish beam hardening and, unfortunately, requires the use of 99.9% pure aluminium (Alloy 1190) for the RQA beam quality, which is expensive and difficult to obtain. Less expensive and more readily available filters, such as Alloy 1100 (99.0% pure) aluminium and copper/aluminium combinations, have been used clinically to produce RQA series without rigorous scientific investigation to support their use. In this paper, simulation and experimental methods are developed to determine the differences in beam quality using Alloy 1190 and Alloy 1100. Additional simulation investigated copper/aluminium combinations to produce RQA5 and outputs from this simulation are verified with laboratory tests using different filter samples. The results of the study demonstrate that although Alloy 1100 produces a harder beam spectrum compared to Alloy 1190, it is a reasonable substitute. A combination filter of 0.5 mm copper and 2 mm aluminium produced a spectrum closer to that of Alloy 1190 than Alloy 1100 with the added benefits of lower exposures and lower batch variability.

Radiologist experience effects on contrast detection.

Current literature shows that radiologist experience does not affect detection tasks when the object does not require medical training to detect. However, the research was never sufficiently detailed to examine if the contrast detection threshold is also the same for radiologists versus nonradiologists. Previously, contrast threshold research was performed predominantly on nonradiologists. Therefore, any differences could lead to over- or under-estimation of the performance capabilities of radiologists. Fourteen readers, evenly divided between radiologists and nonradiologists, read a set of 150 mammogram-like images. The study was performed with the location of the objects known and unknown, requiring two separate readings. No difference in the contrast detection threshold between reader groups for either the location-unknown (4.9 just noticeable differences) or location-known (3.3 just noticeable differences) images was seen. The standard deviation for the location-unknown condition had no difference (p 0.91). But for the location-known condition, a significant difference (p 0.0009) was seen between radiologists and nonradiologists. No difference in contrast detection based on reader experience was observed, but decreased variance was seen with radiologists in the location-known condition.

Is the iPad suitable for image display at American Board of Radiology examinations?

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine the acceptability of the iPad 3 as a display option for American Board of Radiology (ABR) examinations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A set of 20 cases for each of nine specialties examined by the ABR was prepared. Each comprised between one and seven images and case information and had been used in previous ABR Initial Certification examinations. Examining radiologists (n = 119) at the ABR oral Initial Certification examinations reviewed sets from one or more specialties on both a 2 MP LED monitor and on the iPad 3 and rated the visibility of the salient image features for each case. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to compare ratings. In addition, a thematic analysis of participants' opinions was undertaken. RESULTS: When all specialties were pooled, the iPad 3 ratings were significantly higher than the monitor ratings (p = 0.0217). The breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and nuclear medicine specialties also returned significantly higher ratings for the visibility of relevant image features for the iPad 3. Monitor ratings were significantly higher for the vascular and interventional specialty, although no images were rated unacceptably poor on the iPad in this specialty. CONCLUSION: The relevant image features were rated more visible on the iPad 3 than on the monitors overall. The iPad 3 was well accepted by a large majority of examiners and can be considered adequate for image display for examination in most or all specialties.

Trend of contrast detection threshold with and without localization.

Published information on contrast detection threshold is based primarily on research using a location-known methodology. In previous work on testing the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) for perceptual linearity, this research group used a location-unknown methodology to more closely reflect clinical practice. A high false-positive rate resulted in a high variance leading to the conclusion that the impact on results of employing a location-known methodology needed to be explored. Fourteen readers reviewed two sets of simulated mammographic background images, one with the location-unknown and one with the location-known methodology. The results of the reader study were analyzed using Reader Operating Characteristic (ROC) methodology and a paired t test. Contrast detection threshold was analyzed using contingency tables. No statistically significant difference was found in GSDF testing, but a highly statistical significant difference (p value <0.0001) was seen in the ROC (AUC) curve between the location-unknown and the location-known methodologies. Location-known methodology not only improved the power of the GSDF test but also affected the contrast detection threshold which changed from +3 when the location was unknown to +2 gray levels for the location-known images. The selection of location known versus unknown in experimental design must be carefully considered to ensure that the conclusions of the experiment reflect the study's objectives.

Verification of DICOM GSDF in complex backgrounds.

While previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the detection threshold and whether the median background intensity shift has been minimized by GSDF remains unknown. We set out to determine if the median background affected the detection of a low-contrast object in a clustered lumpy background, which simulated a mammography image, and to define the contrast detection threshold for these complex images. Clustered lumpy background images were created of different median intensities and disks of varying contrasts were inserted. A reader study was performed with 17 readers of varying skill level who scored with a five-point confidence scale whether a disk was present. The results were analyzed using reader operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. Contingency tables were used to determine the contrast detection threshold. No statistically significant difference was seen in the area under the ROC curve across all of the backgrounds. Contrast detection fell below 50 % between +3 and +2 gray levels. Our work supports the conclusion that Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine GSDF calibrated monitors do perceptually linearize detection performance across shifts in median background intensity. The contrast detection threshold was determined to be +3 gray levels above the background for an object of 1° visual angle.

An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (executive summary).

Digital radiographic imaging systems, such as those using photostimulable storage phosphor, amorphous selenium, amorphous silicon, CCD, and MOSFET technology, can produce adequate image quality over a much broader range of exposure levels than that of screen/film imaging systems. In screen/film imaging, the final image brightness and contrast are indicative of over- and underexposure. In digital imaging, brightness and contrast are often determined entirely by digital postprocessing of the acquired image data. Overexposure and underexposures are not readily recognizable. As a result, patient dose has a tendency to gradually increase over time after a department converts from screen/film-based imaging to digital radiographic imaging. The purpose of this report is to recommend a standard indicator which reflects the radiation exposure that is incident on a detector after every exposure event and that reflects the noise levels present in the image data. The intent is to facilitate the production of consistent, high quality digital radiographic images at acceptable patient doses. This should be based not on image optical density or brightness but on feedback regarding the detector exposure provided and actively monitored by the imaging system. A standard beam calibration condition is recommended that is based on RQA5 but uses filtration materials that are commonly available and simple to use. Recommendations on clinical implementation of the indices to control image quality and patient dose are derived from historical tolerance limits and presented as guidelines.

Full-field digital mammography on LCD versus CRT monitors.

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine if the display of full-field digital mammograms on a 5-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor is at least equivalent to the display of the same on a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five radiologists evaluated normal anatomy and features of 61 abnormalities in 48 full-field digital mammograms. A 9-point Likert scale was used to compare images on two identical soft-copy review workstations, one equipped with two 5-megapixel CRTs and the other with two 5-megapixel LCDs. Outcomes were evaluated using a random-effects analysis of variance model. Means and SEs were reported. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals and p values were calculated. RESULTS: The two systems were equivalent for most features. The LCDs were rated better for the sharpness of mass margins (p = 0.011) and mass conspicuity (p = 0.050). For calcium features, the LCDs were rated better than the CRTs for lesion conspicuity (p = 0.010) and number of calcifications (p = 0.043). For architectural distortions, there was no statistically significant difference between the monitors in any of the features evaluated. For display characteristics, the LCDs were better for luminance (p = 0.021). The CRTs were significantly better for image noise (p = 0.001). In the overall ratings, there was no statistically significant difference between the two displays. CONCLUSION: The 5-megapixel monochrome active-matrix LCD is equivalent to and in some respects better than the 5-megapixel CRT display for full-field digital mammograms over a range of normal and abnormal findings.