Radiography
Volume 16, Issue 2 , Pages 147-153 , May 2010

Image quality assessment tools for optimization of CT images

  • Francis Zarb

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Health Care, University of Malta, St Luke's Road, G'Mangia, Malta
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +356 23401833; fax: +356 21244975.
    • ,
  • Louise Rainford

      Affiliations

    • School of Medicine & Medical Science Health science Centre Belfield Dublin 4, Ireland
    • ,
  • Mark F. McEntee

      Affiliations

    • School of Medicine & Medical Science Health science Centre Belfield Dublin 4, Ireland
    • Tel.: +353 17166536.

Received 2 April 2009 ,Revised 27 July 2009 ,Accepted 3 October 2009.

References 

  1. Haaga J. Radiation dose management: weighing risk versus benefit. AJR. 2001;177:289–291
  2. ICRP . Annals of the ICRP Publication 60: 1990 recommendations of the ICRP on radiological protection. UK: Pergamon Press; 1991;
  3. ICRP . Annals of the ICRP Publication 101: assessing dose of the representative person for the purpose of radiation protection of the public and the optimisation of radiological protection: broadening the process. UK: Elsevier; 2006;
  4. Marmolya G, Wiesen E, Yagan R, Harija C, Shah A. Paranasal sinuses: low dose CT. Radiology. 1991;181:689–691
  5. Mansson L. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2000;90(1–2):89–99
  6. Kalra M, Prasad S, Saini S, Blake M, Varghese J, Halpern E, et al. Clinical comparison of standard dose and 50% reduced dose abdominal CT: effect on image quality. AJR. 2002;179:1101–1106
  7. Mayo J, Aldrich J, Muller N. Radiation exposure at chest CT: a statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2003;228:15–21
  8. Martin C, Sutton D, Sharp P. Balancing patient dose and image quality. Appl Radiat Isot. 1999;50:1–19
  9. McCollough C, Bruesewitz M, Kofler J. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. RadioGraphics. 2006;26:503–512
  10. Kalender W. Computed tomography: fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications. Erlangen: Publicis Corporate Publishing; 2005;
  11. Bushberg J, Seibert A, Leidholdt E, Boone J. In: The essential physics of medical imaging. 2nd ed.. USA: Lippincott; 2002;
  12. IEC . Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments. Part 2–6: constancy tests – X-ray equipment for computed tomography. IEC; 1994;(1223):2–6
  13. Reddinger W. CT image quality. OutSource, Inc.; 1998;
  14. Wessling J, Fischbach R, Meier N, Allkemper T, Klusmeier J, Ludwig K, et al. CT Colonography: protocol optimization with multi-detector row CT – Study in an anthropomorphic colon phantom. Radiology. 2003;228:753–759
  15. McNitt-Gray M. Tradeoffs in CT image quality and dose. Med Phys. 2006;33(6):2154–2162
  16. McNitt-Gray M. Radiation dose in CT. RadioGraphics. 2002;22:1541–1553
  17. Primak A, McCollough C, Bruesewitz M, Zhang J, Fletcher J. Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multidetector row CT. RadioGraphics. 2006;26:1785–1794
  18. Crawley M, Booth A, Wainwright A. A practical approach to the first iteration in the optimizatiion of radiation dose and image quality in CT: estimates of the collective dose savings achieved. BJR. 2001;74:607–614
  19. Hamberg L, Rhea J, Hunter G, Thraall J. Multi-detector row CT: radiation dose characteristics. Radiology. 2003;226:762–772
  20. The phantom laboratory. Catphan 500 and 600 manual, 2006.
  21. Starck G, Lonn L, Cederblad A, Alpsten M, Sjostrom L, Ekholm S. Radiation dose reduction in CT: application to tissue area and volume determination. Radiology. 1998;209:397–403
  22. Power N, Pryor M, Martin A, Harrocks J, McLean A, Reznek R. Optimization of scanning parameters for CT colonography. BJR. 2002;75:401–408
  23. Rusinek H, Naidich D, McGuinness G, Leitman B, McCauley D, Krinsky G, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection: low dose versus conventional CT. Radiology. 1998;209:243–249
  24. Pachoud M, Verdun F, Moeckli R, Hessler C, Lepori D, Valley J. New screen-film characterisation by means of objective and subjective methods. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2000;90(1–2):177–180
  25. Data Spectrum Corporation. Medical Imaging Phantom Design. 2008. www.spect.com/faq.html; (Accessed 27th May 2009).
  26. Ciantar D, Fitzgerald M, Cotterill D, Pettett A, Cook V, Beluffi G, et al. Correlation between quantitative and subjective assessment of image quality in pediatric radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2000;90(1–2):185–188
  27. Jurik A, Jessen K, Hansen J. Image quality and dose in computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 1997;7:77–81
  28. Gerber T, Kuzo R, Morin R. Techniques and parameters for estimating radiation exposure and dose in cardiac computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2005;21:165–176
  29. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography, 1999.
  30. Calzado A, Rodriguez R, Munoz A. Quality criteria implementation fot brain and lumbar spine CT. Examination BJR. 2000;73:384–395
  31. Moran L, Rodriguez R, Calzado A, Turrero A, Arenas A, Cuevas A, et al. Image quality and dose evaluation in spiral CT examinations of patients with lung carcinoma. BJR. 2004;77:839–846
  32. Jurik A, Petersen J, Jessen K, Bongartz G, Geleijns J, Golding S, et al. Clinical use of image quality criteria in computed tomography: a pilot study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2000;90(1–2):47–52
  33. Jessen K, Bongarts G, Geleijns J, Golding S, Jurik A, Leonardi M, et al. Quality criteria development within the fourth framework research programme: computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2000;90(1–2):79–83
  34. Metz C. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol. 1986;21:720–733
  35. Chakraborty D. ROC curves predicted by a model of visual research. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:3463–3482
  36. Altman D, Bland J. Statistics notes: diagnostic tests 3: receiver operator characteristics. BJR. 1994;309:188
  37. Vining D, Gladish G. Receiver operating characteristic curves: a basic understanding. RadioGraphics. 1992;12:1147–1154
  38. Chakraborty D. Recent advances in observer performance methodology: Jackknife Free-Response ROC (JAFROC). Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1–3):26–31
  39. Chakraborty D. A search model and figure of merit for observer data acquired according to the free-response paradigm. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:3449–3462
  40. Obuchiwski N. New methodological tools for multiple reader ROC studies. Radiology. 2007;243:10–12
  41. Obuchiwski N. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology. 2003;229:3–8
  42. Park S, Goo J, Jo C. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: practical review for radiologists. Korean J Radiol. 2004;5(1):11–18
  43. Chakraborty D, Berbaum K. Observer studies involving detection and localization: modelling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys. 2004;31(80):2313–2330
  44. Chakraborty D, 2005, Welcome to Dev Chakraborty's FROC Web Site http://www.devchakraborty.com Murrysville.
  45. Chakraborty D, 2005, JAFROC http://www.devchakraborty.com Murrysville.
  46. Chakraborty D, 2005, How to Conduct a Free Response Study. http://www.devchakraborty.com Murrysville.

PII: S1078-8174(09)00096-0

doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2009.10.002

Radiography
Volume 16, Issue 2 , Pages 147-153 , May 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution