Cargando…

Evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG‐150 Draft Image Detector Tests

The purpose of this study was to evaluate several of the standardized image quality metrics proposed by the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 150. The task group suggested region‐of‐interest (ROI)‐based techniques to measure nonuniformity, minimum signal‐to‐noise ratio (S...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Guang, Greene, Travis C., Nishino, Thomas K., Willis, Charles E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685102
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6008
_version_ 1783310101927428096
author Li, Guang
Greene, Travis C.
Nishino, Thomas K.
Willis, Charles E.
author_facet Li, Guang
Greene, Travis C.
Nishino, Thomas K.
Willis, Charles E.
author_sort Li, Guang
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to evaluate several of the standardized image quality metrics proposed by the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 150. The task group suggested region‐of‐interest (ROI)‐based techniques to measure nonuniformity, minimum signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), number of anomalous pixels, and modulation transfer function (MTF). This study evaluated the effects of ROI size and layout on the image metrics by using four different ROI sets, assessed result uncertainty by repeating measurements, and compared results with two commercially available quality control tools, namely the Carestream DIRECTVIEW Total Quality Tool (TQT) and the GE Healthcare Quality Assurance Process (QAP). Seven Carestream DRX‐1C (CsI) detectors on mobile DR systems and four GE FlashPad detectors in radiographic rooms were tested. Images were analyzed using MATLAB software that had been previously validated and reported. Our values for signal and SNR nonuniformity and MTF agree with values published by other investigators. Our results show that ROI size affects nonuniformity and minimum SNR measurements, but not detection of anomalous pixels. Exposure geometry affects all tested image metrics except for the MTF. TG‐150 metrics in general agree with the TQT, but agree with the QAP only for local and global signal nonuniformity. The difference in SNR nonuniformity and MTF values between the TG‐150 and QAP may be explained by differences in the calculation of noise and acquisition beam quality, respectively. TG‐150's SNR nonuniformity metrics are also more sensitive to detector nonuniformity compared to the QAP. Our results suggest that fixed ROI size should be used for consistency because nonuniformity metrics depend on ROI size. Ideally, detector tests should be performed at the exact calibration position. If not feasible, a baseline should be established from the mean of several repeated measurements. Our study indicates that the TG‐150 tests can be used as an independent standardized procedure for detector performance assessment. PACS number(s): 87.57.‐s, 87.57.C
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5874089
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58740892018-04-02 Evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG‐150 Draft Image Detector Tests Li, Guang Greene, Travis C. Nishino, Thomas K. Willis, Charles E. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging The purpose of this study was to evaluate several of the standardized image quality metrics proposed by the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 150. The task group suggested region‐of‐interest (ROI)‐based techniques to measure nonuniformity, minimum signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), number of anomalous pixels, and modulation transfer function (MTF). This study evaluated the effects of ROI size and layout on the image metrics by using four different ROI sets, assessed result uncertainty by repeating measurements, and compared results with two commercially available quality control tools, namely the Carestream DIRECTVIEW Total Quality Tool (TQT) and the GE Healthcare Quality Assurance Process (QAP). Seven Carestream DRX‐1C (CsI) detectors on mobile DR systems and four GE FlashPad detectors in radiographic rooms were tested. Images were analyzed using MATLAB software that had been previously validated and reported. Our values for signal and SNR nonuniformity and MTF agree with values published by other investigators. Our results show that ROI size affects nonuniformity and minimum SNR measurements, but not detection of anomalous pixels. Exposure geometry affects all tested image metrics except for the MTF. TG‐150 metrics in general agree with the TQT, but agree with the QAP only for local and global signal nonuniformity. The difference in SNR nonuniformity and MTF values between the TG‐150 and QAP may be explained by differences in the calculation of noise and acquisition beam quality, respectively. TG‐150's SNR nonuniformity metrics are also more sensitive to detector nonuniformity compared to the QAP. Our results suggest that fixed ROI size should be used for consistency because nonuniformity metrics depend on ROI size. Ideally, detector tests should be performed at the exact calibration position. If not feasible, a baseline should be established from the mean of several repeated measurements. Our study indicates that the TG‐150 tests can be used as an independent standardized procedure for detector performance assessment. PACS number(s): 87.57.‐s, 87.57.C John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5874089/ /pubmed/27685102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6008 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Li, Guang
Greene, Travis C.
Nishino, Thomas K.
Willis, Charles E.
Evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG‐150 Draft Image Detector Tests
title Evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG‐150 Draft Image Detector Tests
title_full Evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG‐150 Draft Image Detector Tests
title_fullStr Evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG‐150 Draft Image Detector Tests
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG‐150 Draft Image Detector Tests
title_short Evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG‐150 Draft Image Detector Tests
title_sort evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: aapm tg‐150 draft image detector tests
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685102
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6008
work_keys_str_mv AT liguang evaluationofcassettebaseddigitalradiographydetectorsusingstandardizedimagequalitymetricsaapmtg150draftimagedetectortests
AT greenetravisc evaluationofcassettebaseddigitalradiographydetectorsusingstandardizedimagequalitymetricsaapmtg150draftimagedetectortests
AT nishinothomask evaluationofcassettebaseddigitalradiographydetectorsusingstandardizedimagequalitymetricsaapmtg150draftimagedetectortests
AT willischarlese evaluationofcassettebaseddigitalradiographydetectorsusingstandardizedimagequalitymetricsaapmtg150draftimagedetectortests