Eintrag weiter verarbeiten
Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom
Gespeichert in:
| Zeitschriftentitel: | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
|---|---|
| Personen und Körperschaften: | , , |
| In: | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 20, 2019, 7, S. 151-159 |
| Format: | E-Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| veröffentlicht: |
Wiley
|
| Schlagwörter: |
| author_facet |
Konst, Bente Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald Båth, Magnus Konst, Bente Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald Båth, Magnus |
|---|---|
| author |
Konst, Bente Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald Båth, Magnus |
| spellingShingle |
Konst, Bente Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald Båth, Magnus Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging Instrumentation Radiation |
| author_sort |
konst, bente |
| spelling |
Konst, Bente Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald Båth, Magnus 1526-9914 1526-9914 Wiley Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging Instrumentation Radiation http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12649 <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>A contrast‐detail phantom such as CDRAD is frequently used for quality assurance, optimization of image quality, and several other purposes. However, it is often used without considering the uncertainty of the results. The aim of this study was to assess two figure of merits (FOM) originating from CDRAD regarding the variations of the FOMs by dose utilized to create the x‐ray image. The probability of overlapping (assessing an image acquired at a lower dose as better than an image acquired at a higher dose) was determined.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The CDRAD phantom located underneath 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA was imaged 16 times at five dose levels using an x‐ray system with a flat‐panel detector. All images were analyzed by CDRAD Analyser, version 1.1, which calculated the FOM inverse image quality figure (IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>) and gave contrast detail curves for each image. Inherent properties of the CDRAD phantom were used to derive a new FOM h, which describes the size of the hole with the same diameter and depth that is just visible. Data were analyzed using heteroscedastic regression of mean and variance by dose. To ease interpretation, probabilities for overlaps were calculated assuming normal distribution, with associated bootstrap confidence intervals.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The proportion of total variability in IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>, explained by the dose (R<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>), was 91%, 85%, and 93% for 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA. Corresponding results for h were 91%, 89%, and 95%. The overlap probability for different mAs levels was 1% for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs, 5% for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs, 10% for 1.6 vs 2.0 mAs, and 10% for 2.0 mAs vs 2.5 mAs for 12 cm PMMA. For 20 cm PMMA, it was 0.5% for 10 vs 16 mAs, 13% for 16 vs 20 mAs, 14% for 20 vs 25 mAs, and 14% for 25 vs 32 mAs. For 26 cm PMMA, the probability varied from 0% to 6% for various mAs levels. Even though the estimated probability for overlap was small, the 95% confidence interval (CI) showed relatively large uncertainties. For 12 cm PMMA, the associated CI for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs was 0.1–3.2%, and the CI for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs was 2.1–7.8%.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Inverse image quality figure and h are about equally related to dose level. The FOM h, which describes the size of a hole that should be seen in the image, may be a more intuitive FOM than IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>. However, considering the probabilities for overlap and their confidence intervals, the FOMs deduced from the CDRAD phantom are not sensitive to dose. Hence, CDRAD may not be an optimal phantom to differentiate between images acquired at different dose levels.</jats:p></jats:sec> Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1002/acm2.12649 |
| facet_avail |
Online Free |
| finc_class_facet |
Allgemeines Technik Physik |
| format |
ElectronicArticle |
| fullrecord |
blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTAwMi9hY20yLjEyNjQ5 |
| id |
ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTAwMi9hY20yLjEyNjQ5 |
| institution |
DE-D275 DE-Bn3 DE-Brt1 DE-Zwi2 DE-D161 DE-Gla1 DE-Zi4 DE-15 DE-Pl11 DE-Rs1 DE-105 DE-14 DE-Ch1 DE-L229 |
| imprint |
Wiley, 2019 |
| imprint_str_mv |
Wiley, 2019 |
| issn |
1526-9914 |
| issn_str_mv |
1526-9914 |
| language |
English |
| mega_collection |
Wiley (CrossRef) |
| match_str |
konst2019imagequalityandradiationdoseinplanarimagingimagequalityfigureofmeritsfromthecdradphantom |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| publisher |
Wiley |
| recordtype |
ai |
| record_format |
ai |
| series |
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
| source_id |
49 |
| title |
Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_unstemmed |
Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_full |
Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_fullStr |
Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_short |
Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_sort |
image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — image quality figure of merits from the cdrad phantom |
| topic |
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging Instrumentation Radiation |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12649 |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| physical |
151-159 |
| description |
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>A contrast‐detail phantom such as CDRAD is frequently used for quality assurance, optimization of image quality, and several other purposes. However, it is often used without considering the uncertainty of the results. The aim of this study was to assess two figure of merits (FOM) originating from CDRAD regarding the variations of the FOMs by dose utilized to create the x‐ray image. The probability of overlapping (assessing an image acquired at a lower dose as better than an image acquired at a higher dose) was determined.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The CDRAD phantom located underneath 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA was imaged 16 times at five dose levels using an x‐ray system with a flat‐panel detector. All images were analyzed by CDRAD Analyser, version 1.1, which calculated the FOM inverse image quality figure (IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>) and gave contrast detail curves for each image. Inherent properties of the CDRAD phantom were used to derive a new FOM h, which describes the size of the hole with the same diameter and depth that is just visible. Data were analyzed using heteroscedastic regression of mean and variance by dose. To ease interpretation, probabilities for overlaps were calculated assuming normal distribution, with associated bootstrap confidence intervals.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The proportion of total variability in IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>, explained by the dose (R<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>), was 91%, 85%, and 93% for 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA. Corresponding results for h were 91%, 89%, and 95%. The overlap probability for different mAs levels was 1% for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs, 5% for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs, 10% for 1.6 vs 2.0 mAs, and 10% for 2.0 mAs vs 2.5 mAs for 12 cm PMMA. For 20 cm PMMA, it was 0.5% for 10 vs 16 mAs, 13% for 16 vs 20 mAs, 14% for 20 vs 25 mAs, and 14% for 25 vs 32 mAs. For 26 cm PMMA, the probability varied from 0% to 6% for various mAs levels. Even though the estimated probability for overlap was small, the 95% confidence interval (CI) showed relatively large uncertainties. For 12 cm PMMA, the associated CI for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs was 0.1–3.2%, and the CI for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs was 2.1–7.8%.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Inverse image quality figure and h are about equally related to dose level. The FOM h, which describes the size of a hole that should be seen in the image, may be a more intuitive FOM than IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>. However, considering the probabilities for overlap and their confidence intervals, the FOMs deduced from the CDRAD phantom are not sensitive to dose. Hence, CDRAD may not be an optimal phantom to differentiate between images acquired at different dose levels.</jats:p></jats:sec> |
| container_issue |
7 |
| container_start_page |
151 |
| container_title |
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
| container_volume |
20 |
| format_de105 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 |
E-Article |
| format_del152 |
Buch |
| format_del189 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 |
Article |
| format_dezwi2 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_finc |
Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw |
Article, E-Article |
| _version_ |
1792340867705470977 |
| geogr_code |
not assigned |
| last_indexed |
2024-03-01T16:10:50.967Z |
| geogr_code_person |
not assigned |
| openURL |
url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=Image+quality+and+radiation+dose+in+planar+imaging+%E2%80%94+Image+quality+figure+of+merits+from+the+CDRAD+phantom&rft.date=2019-07-01&genre=article&issn=1526-9914&volume=20&issue=7&spage=151&epage=159&pages=151-159&jtitle=Journal+of+Applied+Clinical+Medical+Physics&atitle=Image+quality+and+radiation+dose+in+planar+imaging+%E2%80%94+Image+quality+figure+of+merits+from+the+CDRAD+phantom&aulast=B%C3%A5th&aufirst=Magnus&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1002%2Facm2.12649&rft.language%5B0%5D=eng |
| SOLR | |
| _version_ | 1792340867705470977 |
| author | Konst, Bente, Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald, Båth, Magnus |
| author_facet | Konst, Bente, Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald, Båth, Magnus, Konst, Bente, Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald, Båth, Magnus |
| author_sort | konst, bente |
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 151 |
| container_title | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
| container_volume | 20 |
| description | <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>A contrast‐detail phantom such as CDRAD is frequently used for quality assurance, optimization of image quality, and several other purposes. However, it is often used without considering the uncertainty of the results. The aim of this study was to assess two figure of merits (FOM) originating from CDRAD regarding the variations of the FOMs by dose utilized to create the x‐ray image. The probability of overlapping (assessing an image acquired at a lower dose as better than an image acquired at a higher dose) was determined.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The CDRAD phantom located underneath 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA was imaged 16 times at five dose levels using an x‐ray system with a flat‐panel detector. All images were analyzed by CDRAD Analyser, version 1.1, which calculated the FOM inverse image quality figure (IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>) and gave contrast detail curves for each image. Inherent properties of the CDRAD phantom were used to derive a new FOM h, which describes the size of the hole with the same diameter and depth that is just visible. Data were analyzed using heteroscedastic regression of mean and variance by dose. To ease interpretation, probabilities for overlaps were calculated assuming normal distribution, with associated bootstrap confidence intervals.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The proportion of total variability in IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>, explained by the dose (R<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>), was 91%, 85%, and 93% for 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA. Corresponding results for h were 91%, 89%, and 95%. The overlap probability for different mAs levels was 1% for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs, 5% for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs, 10% for 1.6 vs 2.0 mAs, and 10% for 2.0 mAs vs 2.5 mAs for 12 cm PMMA. For 20 cm PMMA, it was 0.5% for 10 vs 16 mAs, 13% for 16 vs 20 mAs, 14% for 20 vs 25 mAs, and 14% for 25 vs 32 mAs. For 26 cm PMMA, the probability varied from 0% to 6% for various mAs levels. Even though the estimated probability for overlap was small, the 95% confidence interval (CI) showed relatively large uncertainties. For 12 cm PMMA, the associated CI for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs was 0.1–3.2%, and the CI for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs was 2.1–7.8%.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Inverse image quality figure and h are about equally related to dose level. The FOM h, which describes the size of a hole that should be seen in the image, may be a more intuitive FOM than IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>. However, considering the probabilities for overlap and their confidence intervals, the FOMs deduced from the CDRAD phantom are not sensitive to dose. Hence, CDRAD may not be an optimal phantom to differentiate between images acquired at different dose levels.</jats:p></jats:sec> |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/acm2.12649 |
| facet_avail | Online, Free |
| finc_class_facet | Allgemeines, Technik, Physik |
| format | ElectronicArticle |
| format_de105 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 | Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 | Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 | E-Article |
| format_del152 | Buch |
| format_del189 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 | Article |
| format_dezwi2 | Article, E-Article |
| format_finc | Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw | Article, E-Article |
| geogr_code | not assigned |
| geogr_code_person | not assigned |
| id | ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTAwMi9hY20yLjEyNjQ5 |
| imprint | Wiley, 2019 |
| imprint_str_mv | Wiley, 2019 |
| institution | DE-D275, DE-Bn3, DE-Brt1, DE-Zwi2, DE-D161, DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4, DE-15, DE-Pl11, DE-Rs1, DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229 |
| issn | 1526-9914 |
| issn_str_mv | 1526-9914 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-01T16:10:50.967Z |
| match_str | konst2019imagequalityandradiationdoseinplanarimagingimagequalityfigureofmeritsfromthecdradphantom |
| mega_collection | Wiley (CrossRef) |
| physical | 151-159 |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publishDateSort | 2019 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | ai |
| recordtype | ai |
| series | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
| source_id | 49 |
| spelling | Konst, Bente Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald Båth, Magnus 1526-9914 1526-9914 Wiley Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging Instrumentation Radiation http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12649 <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>A contrast‐detail phantom such as CDRAD is frequently used for quality assurance, optimization of image quality, and several other purposes. However, it is often used without considering the uncertainty of the results. The aim of this study was to assess two figure of merits (FOM) originating from CDRAD regarding the variations of the FOMs by dose utilized to create the x‐ray image. The probability of overlapping (assessing an image acquired at a lower dose as better than an image acquired at a higher dose) was determined.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The CDRAD phantom located underneath 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA was imaged 16 times at five dose levels using an x‐ray system with a flat‐panel detector. All images were analyzed by CDRAD Analyser, version 1.1, which calculated the FOM inverse image quality figure (IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>) and gave contrast detail curves for each image. Inherent properties of the CDRAD phantom were used to derive a new FOM h, which describes the size of the hole with the same diameter and depth that is just visible. Data were analyzed using heteroscedastic regression of mean and variance by dose. To ease interpretation, probabilities for overlaps were calculated assuming normal distribution, with associated bootstrap confidence intervals.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The proportion of total variability in IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>, explained by the dose (R<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>), was 91%, 85%, and 93% for 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA. Corresponding results for h were 91%, 89%, and 95%. The overlap probability for different mAs levels was 1% for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs, 5% for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs, 10% for 1.6 vs 2.0 mAs, and 10% for 2.0 mAs vs 2.5 mAs for 12 cm PMMA. For 20 cm PMMA, it was 0.5% for 10 vs 16 mAs, 13% for 16 vs 20 mAs, 14% for 20 vs 25 mAs, and 14% for 25 vs 32 mAs. For 26 cm PMMA, the probability varied from 0% to 6% for various mAs levels. Even though the estimated probability for overlap was small, the 95% confidence interval (CI) showed relatively large uncertainties. For 12 cm PMMA, the associated CI for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs was 0.1–3.2%, and the CI for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs was 2.1–7.8%.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Inverse image quality figure and h are about equally related to dose level. The FOM h, which describes the size of a hole that should be seen in the image, may be a more intuitive FOM than IQF<jats:sub>inv</jats:sub>. However, considering the probabilities for overlap and their confidence intervals, the FOMs deduced from the CDRAD phantom are not sensitive to dose. Hence, CDRAD may not be an optimal phantom to differentiate between images acquired at different dose levels.</jats:p></jats:sec> Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
| spellingShingle | Konst, Bente, Weedon‐Fekjær, Harald, Båth, Magnus, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Instrumentation, Radiation |
| title | Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_full | Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_fullStr | Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_full_unstemmed | Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_short | Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| title_sort | image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — image quality figure of merits from the cdrad phantom |
| title_unstemmed | Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging — Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom |
| topic | Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Instrumentation, Radiation |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12649 |