Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 11/2016

01-10-2016 | Original Article

Image quality and dose differences caused by vendor-specific image processing of neonatal radiographs

Authors: William F. Sensakovic, M. Cody O’Dell, Haley Letter, Nathan Kohler, Baiywo Rop, Jane Cook, Gregory Logsdon, Laura Varich

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 11/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Image processing plays an important role in optimizing image quality and radiation dose in projection radiography. Unfortunately commercial algorithms are black boxes that are often left at or near vendor default settings rather than being optimized.

Objective

We hypothesize that different commercial image-processing systems, when left at or near default settings, create significant differences in image quality. We further hypothesize that image-quality differences can be exploited to produce images of equivalent quality but lower radiation dose.

Materials and methods

We used a portable radiography system to acquire images on a neonatal chest phantom and recorded the entrance surface air kerma (ESAK). We applied two image-processing systems (Optima XR220amx, by GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI; and MUSICA2 by Agfa HealthCare, Mortsel, Belgium) to the images. Seven observers (attending pediatric radiologists and radiology residents) independently assessed image quality using two methods: rating and matching. Image-quality ratings were independently assessed by each observer on a 10-point scale. Matching consisted of each observer matching GE-processed images and Agfa-processed images with equivalent image quality. A total of 210 rating tasks and 42 matching tasks were performed and effective dose was estimated.

Results

Median Agfa-processed image-quality ratings were higher than GE-processed ratings. Non-diagnostic ratings were seen over a wider range of doses for GE-processed images than for Agfa-processed images. During matching tasks, observers matched image quality between GE-processed images and Agfa-processed images acquired at a lower effective dose (11 ± 9 μSv; P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Image-processing methods significantly impact perceived image quality. These image-quality differences can be exploited to alter protocols and produce images of equivalent image quality but lower doses. Those purchasing projection radiography systems or third-party image-processing software should be aware that image processing can significantly impact image quality when settings are left near default values.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Schauer DA, Linton OW (2009) NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States, medical exposure – are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys 97:1–5CrossRefPubMed Schauer DA, Linton OW (2009) NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States, medical exposure – are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys 97:1–5CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Dorfman AL, Fazel R, Einstein AJ et al (2011) Use of medical imaging procedures with ionizing radiation in children: a population-based study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 165:458–464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dorfman AL, Fazel R, Einstein AJ et al (2011) Use of medical imaging procedures with ionizing radiation in children: a population-based study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 165:458–464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Donadieu J, Zeghnoun A, Roudier C et al (2006) Cumulative effective doses delivered by radiographs to preterm infants in a neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatrics 117:882–888CrossRefPubMed Donadieu J, Zeghnoun A, Roudier C et al (2006) Cumulative effective doses delivered by radiographs to preterm infants in a neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatrics 117:882–888CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Don S, Macdougall R, Strauss K et al (2013) Image Gently campaign back to basics initiative: ten steps to help manage radiation dose in pediatric digital radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:W431–436CrossRefPubMed Don S, Macdougall R, Strauss K et al (2013) Image Gently campaign back to basics initiative: ten steps to help manage radiation dose in pediatric digital radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:W431–436CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Willis CE, Slovis TL (2005) The ALARA concept in pediatric CR and DR: dose reduction in pediatric radiographic exams--a white paper conference. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:373–374CrossRefPubMed Willis CE, Slovis TL (2005) The ALARA concept in pediatric CR and DR: dose reduction in pediatric radiographic exams--a white paper conference. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:373–374CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference GE Healthcare (2010) Optima XR220amx X-ray system operator manual GE Healthcare (2010) Optima XR220amx X-ray system operator manual
8.
go back to reference Gwet KL (2008) Variance estimation of nominal-scale inter-rater reliability with random selection of raters. Psychometrika 73:407–430CrossRef Gwet KL (2008) Variance estimation of nominal-scale inter-rater reliability with random selection of raters. Psychometrika 73:407–430CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kramer R, Cavalcanti A, Cassola V et al (2012) CALDose_X online: real time Monte Carlo calculations for patient dosimetry in X-ray diagnosis. 13th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), Glasgow Kramer R, Cavalcanti A, Cassola V et al (2012) CALDose_X online: real time Monte Carlo calculations for patient dosimetry in X-ray diagnosis. 13th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), Glasgow
10.
go back to reference Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG (2005) Statistics for experimenters: design, innovation, and discovery. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG (2005) Statistics for experimenters: design, innovation, and discovery. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken
11.
go back to reference Cohen J, Cohen J (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah Cohen J, Cohen J (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
12.
go back to reference IBM (2013) IBM SPSS statistics for windows. IBM Corp, Armonk IBM (2013) IBM SPSS statistics for windows. IBM Corp, Armonk
14.
go back to reference Busch HP, Lehmann KJ, Georgi M (1993) New analog and digital imaging techniques for chest diagnosis–principles–clinical value–economics. Aktuelle Radiol 3:6–13PubMed Busch HP, Lehmann KJ, Georgi M (1993) New analog and digital imaging techniques for chest diagnosis–principles–clinical value–economics. Aktuelle Radiol 3:6–13PubMed
15.
go back to reference van Heesewijk HP, van der Graaf Y, de Valois JC et al (1996) Effects of dose reduction on digital chest imaging using a selenium detector: a study of detecting simulated diffuse interstitial pulmonary disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:403–408CrossRefPubMed van Heesewijk HP, van der Graaf Y, de Valois JC et al (1996) Effects of dose reduction on digital chest imaging using a selenium detector: a study of detecting simulated diffuse interstitial pulmonary disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:403–408CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Schaefer CM, Greene RE, Oestmann JW et al (1989) Improved control of image optical density with low-dose digital and conventional radiography in bedside imaging. Radiology 173:713–716CrossRefPubMed Schaefer CM, Greene RE, Oestmann JW et al (1989) Improved control of image optical density with low-dose digital and conventional radiography in bedside imaging. Radiology 173:713–716CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Don S, Whiting BR, Ellinwood JS et al (2007) Neonatal chest computed radiography: image processing and optimal image display. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1138–1144 Don S, Whiting BR, Ellinwood JS et al (2007) Neonatal chest computed radiography: image processing and optimal image display. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1138–1144
18.
go back to reference Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U et al (2004) Skeletal applications for flat-panel versus storage-phospor radiography: effect of exposure on detection of low-contrast details. Radiology 231:506–514 Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U et al (2004) Skeletal applications for flat-panel versus storage-phospor radiography: effect of exposure on detection of low-contrast details. Radiology 231:506–514
19.
go back to reference Kroft LJ, Veldkamp WJ, Mertens BJ et al (2005) Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: variation in detection of simulated chest disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:339–346 Kroft LJ, Veldkamp WJ, Mertens BJ et al (2005) Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: variation in detection of simulated chest disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:339–346
20.
go back to reference Armpilia CI, Fife IA, Croasdale PL (2002) Radiation dose quantities and risk in neonates in a special care baby unit. Br J Radiol 75:590–595CrossRefPubMed Armpilia CI, Fife IA, Croasdale PL (2002) Radiation dose quantities and risk in neonates in a special care baby unit. Br J Radiol 75:590–595CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Brindhaban A, Eze CU (2006) Estimation of radiation dose during diagnostic X-ray examinations of newborn babies and 1-year-old infants. Med Princ Pract 15:260–265CrossRefPubMed Brindhaban A, Eze CU (2006) Estimation of radiation dose during diagnostic X-ray examinations of newborn babies and 1-year-old infants. Med Princ Pract 15:260–265CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Lowe A, Finch A, Boniface D et al (1999) Diagnostic image quality of mobile neonatal chest X-rays and the radiation exposure incurred. Br J Radiol 72:55–61CrossRefPubMed Lowe A, Finch A, Boniface D et al (1999) Diagnostic image quality of mobile neonatal chest X-rays and the radiation exposure incurred. Br J Radiol 72:55–61CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Ma H, Elbakri IA, Reed M (2013) Estimation of organ and effective doses from newborn radiography of the chest and abdomen. Radiat Prot Dosim 156:160–167CrossRef Ma H, Elbakri IA, Reed M (2013) Estimation of organ and effective doses from newborn radiography of the chest and abdomen. Radiat Prot Dosim 156:160–167CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383CrossRefPubMed Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Image quality and dose differences caused by vendor-specific image processing of neonatal radiographs
Authors
William F. Sensakovic
M. Cody O’Dell
Haley Letter
Nathan Kohler
Baiywo Rop
Jane Cook
Gregory Logsdon
Laura Varich
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-016-3663-2

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

Pediatric Radiology 11/2016 Go to the issue

Hermes

Hermes