EVALUATION OF IMAGE QUALITY

  • PETER F. SHARP
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAII, volume 240)

Abstract

In this paper we describe an overarching framework that allows us to interpret the information from an image. Starting with the imaging device, consideration will be given to the measurement of the quality of the raw data detected by the instrument. This uses Bayesian signal detection theory to combine the large area transfer characteristic, the modulation transfer function and the noise power spectrum in a single measure of quality.Then we will discuss how to assess the quality of the displayed image by measuring human performance directly. The most complete description of observer performance is provided by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis, which estimates all the combinations of sensitivity and specificity available from an imaging procedure. How subjective measures of image quality can be combined with the objective assessment of performance will be investigated. Finally, we will show how quality can be extended to the judgement of the influence of imaging technology on the clinical management of patients, including the quality of life of the patient.

Keywords

Autocorrelation Decis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bradbury, I., Bonell, E., Boynton, J., Cummins, E., Facey, K., Iqbal, K., Laking, G., McDonald, C., Parpia, T., Sharp, P., Single, A., and Walker, A., 2002, Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. Health Technology Assessment Report 2. Health Technology Board for Scotland, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brettle, D.S., Workman, A. Ellwood, R.P., Launders, J.H., Horner, K., and Davies, R.M., 1996, The imaging performance of a storage phosphor system for dental, radiography Br. J. Radiol. 69:256–261.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Efstathopoulos, E.P., Costaridou, L., Kocsis, O., and Panayiotakis, G., 2001, A protocol based evaluation of medical image digitizers, Br. J. Radiol, 74:841–846.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fryback, D. G., and Thornbury, J.R., 1991, The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med. Decis. Making, 11:88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giger, M.L., and Doi, K., 1984, Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 1. Modulation transfer function, Med.Phys.11:287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giger, M.L., Doi, K., and Metz C.E., 1984, Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 2. Noise Wiener spectrum, Med. Phys. 11:287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green D.M., and Swets, J.A., 1966, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, Wiley, New York, p.60.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 1996, Report 54. Medical Imaging —The Assessment of Image Quality, ICRU, Washington, pp. 50–52.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacMahon, H., Metz, C.E., Do,i K., Kim, T., Giger, M.L., and Chan, H.P., 1988, Digital chest radiography: effect on diagnostic accuracy of hard copy, conventional video, and reversed gray scale video display formats, Radiol. 168:669–73.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Metz, C.E., 1986, ROC methodology in radiologic imaging, Invest. Radiol. 21: 720–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Trees, H.L., 1968, Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory. Part 1: Detection, Estimation, and Linear Modulation Theory, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yip, M., Pang, S.Y., Yim, W.S., and Kwok, C.S., 2001, ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography. Br. J. Radiol.74: 621–628.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • PETER F. SHARP
    • 1
  1. 1.University Hospital NHS TrustUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations