Modelling of Subjective Radiological Assessments with Objective Image Quality Measures of Brain and Body CT Images

  • Ilona A. Kowalik-UrbaniakEmail author
  • Jane Castelli
  • Nasim Hemmati
  • David Koff
  • Nadine Smolarski-Koff
  • Edward R. Vrscay
  • Jiheng Wang
  • Zhou Wang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9164)


In this work we determine how well the common objective image quality measures (Mean Squared Error (MSE), local MSE, Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), Visual Signal-to-Noise Ratio (VSNR) and Visual Information Fidelity (VIF)) predict subjective radiologists’ assessments for brain and body computed tomography (CT) images.

A subjective experiment was designed where radiologists were asked to rate the quality of compressed medical images in a setting similar to clinical. We propose a modified Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis method for comparison of the image quality measures where the “ground truth” is considered to be given by subjective scores. The best performance was achieved by the SSIM index and VIF for brain and body CT images. The worst results were observed for VSNR.

We have utilized a logistic curve model which can be used to predict the subjective assessments with an objective criteria. This is a practical tool that can be used to determine the quality of medical images.


Mean Square Error Image Quality Assessment Body Compute Tomography Quality Assessment Method Objective Image Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Prof. Paul Marriott, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Sciences, University of Waterloo for valuable advice with regard to the statistical design of our experiments. This research was supported in part by Discovery Grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (ERV and ZW).


  1. 1.
    Chandler, D.M., Hemami, S.S.: VSNR: A wavelet-based visual signal-to-noise ratio for natural images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 16(9), 2284–2298 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandler, D.M., Lim, K.H., Hemami, S.S.: Effects of spatial correlations and global precedence on the visual fidelity of distorted images. In: Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XI, vol. 6057, February 2006Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cosman, P.C., Gray, R.M., Olshen, R.A.: Evaluating quality of compressed medical images: Snr, subjective rating, and diagnostic accuracy. In: 82 (ed.) Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 6, pp. 919–932, June 1994Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fidler, A., Likar, B.: What is wrong with compression ratio in lossy image compression? Radiology 245(1), 299 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. George and S. J. Livingston. A survey on full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IJRET: Int. J. Research Eng. Technol. 2(12), December 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koff, D., Bak, P., Brownrigg, P., Hosseinzadeh, D., Khademi, A., Kiss, A., Lepanto, L., Michalak, T., Shulman, H., Volkening, A.: Pan-canadian evaluation of irreversible compression ratios (lossy compression) for development of national guidelines. J. Digit. Imaging 22(6), 569–578 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koff, D., Shulman, H.: An overview of digital compression of medical images: Can we use lossy image compression in radiology? CARJ 57(4), 211–217 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kowalik-Urbaniak, I.A.: The quest for ’diagnostically lossless’ medical image compression using objective image quality measures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kowalik-Urbaniak, I.A., Brunet, D., Wang, J., Vrscay, E., Wang, Z., Koff, D., Koff, N., Wallace, B.: The quest for ’diagnostically lossless’ medical image compression: a comparative study of objective quality metrics for compressed medical images. In: Medical Imaging : Image Perception. Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment 9037, 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marmolin, H.: Subjective MSE measures. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man and Cybern., SMC 16(3), 486–489 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Metz, C.E.: Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin. Nucl. Med. 8, 282–298 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nait-Ali, A., Cavaro-Menard, C.: Compression of Biomedical Images and Signals. Wiley, London (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Society of Radiology: (ESR). Usability of irreversible image compression in radiological imaging. Insights into. Imaging 2(2), 103–115 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sheikh, H.R., Bovik, A.C., de Veciana, S.G.: An information fidelity criterion for image quality assessment using natural scene statistics. IEEE Trans. Image Proces. 14(12), 2117–2128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C.: Mean squared error: love it or leave it? - a new look at signal fidelity measures. IEEE Signal Proc. Mag. 26(1), 98–117 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Proces. 13(4), 600–612 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, Z., Li, Q.: Information content weighting for perceptual image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Proces. 20(5), 1185–1198 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilona A. Kowalik-Urbaniak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jane Castelli
    • 3
  • Nasim Hemmati
    • 4
  • David Koff
    • 3
  • Nadine Smolarski-Koff
    • 3
  • Edward R. Vrscay
    • 1
  • Jiheng Wang
    • 2
  • Zhou Wang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of MathematicsUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringFaculty of Engineering, University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Hamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations