Cargando…

The Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluation

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is a relationship between subjective parameters determined by a reviewer (spatial resolution, low contrast resolution, and artifacts) and objective parameters (the CT number of water, noise, and image uniformity) in CT phantom image evaluations. MATERIALS AND MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Hye Jung, Jung, Seung Eun, Lee, Young Joon, Cho, Woo Il, Do, Kyung Hyun, Kim, Seung Hyup, Kim, Ki Hwang
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Radiology 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2731867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19721834
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2009.10.5.490
_version_ 1782170981052186624
author Park, Hye Jung
Jung, Seung Eun
Lee, Young Joon
Cho, Woo Il
Do, Kyung Hyun
Kim, Seung Hyup
Kim, Ki Hwang
author_facet Park, Hye Jung
Jung, Seung Eun
Lee, Young Joon
Cho, Woo Il
Do, Kyung Hyun
Kim, Seung Hyup
Kim, Ki Hwang
author_sort Park, Hye Jung
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is a relationship between subjective parameters determined by a reviewer (spatial resolution, low contrast resolution, and artifacts) and objective parameters (the CT number of water, noise, and image uniformity) in CT phantom image evaluations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the CT results of phantom image evaluations conducted by Korean Institute for Accreditation of Medical Image (KIAMI) from May 2007 to June 2007. We compared the objective parameters against the pass or fail groups for the subjective parameters. We also evaluated whether there is a relationship between the artifact types and the other subjective parameters. RESULTS: The mean noise value was significantly higher in the fail groups for the subjective parameters compared to the pass groups (p = 0.006). Specifically, noise and low contrast resolution were found to have a statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.183, p < 0.001). In the fail group for low contrast resolution, the failure due to artifacts was significantly higher than the pass group (p < 0.001). In contrast, no statistically significant differences were found for the mean CT number of water, noise, or image uniformity based on the types of artifacts. CONCLUSION: Subjective CT image parameters evaluated by a reviewer correlate with objectively measured parameters, especially noise. Therefore, a stricter noise standard might be able to improve the subjective parameters results, such as low contrast resolution.
format Text
id pubmed-2731867
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher The Korean Society of Radiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27318672009-09-01 The Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluation Park, Hye Jung Jung, Seung Eun Lee, Young Joon Cho, Woo Il Do, Kyung Hyun Kim, Seung Hyup Kim, Ki Hwang Korean J Radiol Original Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is a relationship between subjective parameters determined by a reviewer (spatial resolution, low contrast resolution, and artifacts) and objective parameters (the CT number of water, noise, and image uniformity) in CT phantom image evaluations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the CT results of phantom image evaluations conducted by Korean Institute for Accreditation of Medical Image (KIAMI) from May 2007 to June 2007. We compared the objective parameters against the pass or fail groups for the subjective parameters. We also evaluated whether there is a relationship between the artifact types and the other subjective parameters. RESULTS: The mean noise value was significantly higher in the fail groups for the subjective parameters compared to the pass groups (p = 0.006). Specifically, noise and low contrast resolution were found to have a statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.183, p < 0.001). In the fail group for low contrast resolution, the failure due to artifacts was significantly higher than the pass group (p < 0.001). In contrast, no statistically significant differences were found for the mean CT number of water, noise, or image uniformity based on the types of artifacts. CONCLUSION: Subjective CT image parameters evaluated by a reviewer correlate with objectively measured parameters, especially noise. Therefore, a stricter noise standard might be able to improve the subjective parameters results, such as low contrast resolution. The Korean Society of Radiology 2009 2009-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC2731867/ /pubmed/19721834 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2009.10.5.490 Text en Copyright © 2009 The Korean Society of Radiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Park, Hye Jung
Jung, Seung Eun
Lee, Young Joon
Cho, Woo Il
Do, Kyung Hyun
Kim, Seung Hyup
Kim, Ki Hwang
The Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluation
title The Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluation
title_full The Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluation
title_fullStr The Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluation
title_full_unstemmed The Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluation
title_short The Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluation
title_sort relationship between subjective and objective parameters in ct phantom image evaluation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2731867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19721834
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2009.10.5.490
work_keys_str_mv AT parkhyejung therelationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT jungseungeun therelationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT leeyoungjoon therelationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT chowooil therelationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT dokyunghyun therelationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT kimseunghyup therelationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT kimkihwang therelationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT parkhyejung relationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT jungseungeun relationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT leeyoungjoon relationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT chowooil relationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT dokyunghyun relationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT kimseunghyup relationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation
AT kimkihwang relationshipbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveparametersinctphantomimageevaluation