Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 5/2012

01-10-2012

Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds

Authors: David L. Leong, Louise Rainford, Tamara Miner Haygood, Gary J. Whitman, Philip M. Tchou, William R. Geiser, Selin Carkaci, Patrick C. Brennan

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 5/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

While previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the detection threshold and whether the median background intensity shift has been minimized by GSDF remains unknown. We set out to determine if the median background affected the detection of a low-contrast object in a clustered lumpy background, which simulated a mammography image, and to define the contrast detection threshold for these complex images. Clustered lumpy background images were created of different median intensities and disks of varying contrasts were inserted. A reader study was performed with 17 readers of varying skill level who scored with a five-point confidence scale whether a disk was present. The results were analyzed using reader operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. Contingency tables were used to determine the contrast detection threshold. No statistically significant difference was seen in the area under the ROC curve across all of the backgrounds. Contrast detection fell below 50 % between +3 and +2 gray levels. Our work supports the conclusion that Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine GSDF calibrated monitors do perceptually linearize detection performance across shifts in median background intensity. The contrast detection threshold was determined to be +3 gray levels above the background for an object of 1° visual angle.
Literature
1.
go back to reference National Electrical Manufacturers Association: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, 2008 National Electrical Manufacturers Association: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, 2008
2.
go back to reference Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, Flynn MJ, Hemminger B, Hangiandreou N, Johnson J, Moxley-Stevens DM, Pavlicek W, Roehrig H, Rutz L, Shepard J, Uzenoff RA, Wang J, Willis CE: Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225, 2005PubMedCrossRef Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, Flynn MJ, Hemminger B, Hangiandreou N, Johnson J, Moxley-Stevens DM, Pavlicek W, Roehrig H, Rutz L, Shepard J, Uzenoff RA, Wang J, Willis CE: Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225, 2005PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference American College of Radiology: Practice guideline for digital radiography. Reston: 2007 American College of Radiology: Practice guideline for digital radiography. Reston: 2007
4.
go back to reference IHE Technical Framework volume I Integration profiles. Chicago: 2007 IHE Technical Framework volume I Integration profiles. Chicago: 2007
5.
go back to reference Barten PGJ: Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, 1999CrossRef Barten PGJ: Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, 1999CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Wang J, Langer S: A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging 10:158–168, 1997PubMedCrossRef Wang J, Langer S: A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging 10:158–168, 1997PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Pelli DG: Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. J Opt Soc Am A 2:1508–1532, 1985PubMedCrossRef Pelli DG: Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. J Opt Soc Am A 2:1508–1532, 1985PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Rovamo J, Luntinen O, Nasanen R: Modelling the dependence of contrast sensitivity on grating area and spatial frequency. Vision Res 33:2773–2788, 1993PubMedCrossRef Rovamo J, Luntinen O, Nasanen R: Modelling the dependence of contrast sensitivity on grating area and spatial frequency. Vision Res 33:2773–2788, 1993PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Nachmias J, Sansbury RV: Letter: Grating contrast: discrimination may be better than detection. Vision Res 14:1039–1042, 1974PubMedCrossRef Nachmias J, Sansbury RV: Letter: Grating contrast: discrimination may be better than detection. Vision Res 14:1039–1042, 1974PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF: Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419–437, 2001PubMedCrossRef Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF: Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419–437, 2001PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Burgess AE, Jacobson F, Judy P: Mass discrimination in mammography: experiments using hybrid images. Acad Radiol 10:1247–1256, 2003PubMedCrossRef Burgess AE, Jacobson F, Judy P: Mass discrimination in mammography: experiments using hybrid images. Acad Radiol 10:1247–1256, 2003PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Peli E: Suprathreshold contrast perception across differences in mean luminance: effects of stimulus size, dichoptic presentation, and length of adaptation. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 12:817–823, 1995PubMedCrossRef Peli E: Suprathreshold contrast perception across differences in mean luminance: effects of stimulus size, dichoptic presentation, and length of adaptation. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 12:817–823, 1995PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Peli E, Arend L, Labianca AT: Contrast perception across changes in luminance and spatial frequency. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 13:1953–1959, 1996PubMedCrossRef Peli E, Arend L, Labianca AT: Contrast perception across changes in luminance and spatial frequency. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 13:1953–1959, 1996PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Wang J, Xu J, Baladandayuthapani V: Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS. Med Phys 36:3682–3692, 2009PubMedCrossRef Wang J, Xu J, Baladandayuthapani V: Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS. Med Phys 36:3682–3692, 2009PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Bochud F, Abbey C, Eckstein M: Statistical texture synthesis of mammographic images with super-blob lumpy backgrounds. Opt Express 4:33–42, 1999PubMedCrossRef Bochud F, Abbey C, Eckstein M: Statistical texture synthesis of mammographic images with super-blob lumpy backgrounds. Opt Express 4:33–42, 1999PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Barten PGJ: Formula for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye. SPIE, San Jose, 2004 Barten PGJ: Formula for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye. SPIE, San Jose, 2004
18.
go back to reference Ryan JT, Haygood TM, Yamal J-M, Evanoff M, O’Sullivan P, McEntee M, Brennan PC: The “memory effect” for repeated radiological observations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W985–W991, 2011PubMedCrossRef Ryan JT, Haygood TM, Yamal J-M, Evanoff M, O’Sullivan P, McEntee M, Brennan PC: The “memory effect” for repeated radiological observations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W985–W991, 2011PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Borjesson S, Hakansson M, Bath M, Kheddache S, Svensson S, Tingberg A, Grahn A, Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Mattsson S, Mansson LG: A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:45–52, 2005PubMedCrossRef Borjesson S, Hakansson M, Bath M, Kheddache S, Svensson S, Tingberg A, Grahn A, Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Mattsson S, Mansson LG: A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:45–52, 2005PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV, Chen YF, Donaghy BA: Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 5:591–602, 1998PubMedCrossRef Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV, Chen YF, Donaghy BA: Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 5:591–602, 1998PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731, 1992PubMedCrossRef Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731, 1992PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hillis SL: A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619, 2007PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL: A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619, 2007PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Power estimation for the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz method. Acad Radiol 11:1260–1273, 2004PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Power estimation for the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz method. Acad Radiol 11:1260–1273, 2004PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. Acad Radiol 12:1534–1541, 2005PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. Acad Radiol 12:1534–1541, 2005PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Recent developments in the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647–661, 2008PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Recent developments in the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647–661, 2008PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS: A comparison of the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz and Obuchowski–Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 24:1579–1607, 2005PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS: A comparison of the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz and Obuchowski–Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 24:1579–1607, 2005PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Starr SJ, Metz CE, Lusted LB, Goodenough DJ: Visual detection and localization of radiographic images. Radiology 116:533–538, 1975PubMed Starr SJ, Metz CE, Lusted LB, Goodenough DJ: Visual detection and localization of radiographic images. Radiology 116:533–538, 1975PubMed
Metadata
Title
Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds
Authors
David L. Leong
Louise Rainford
Tamara Miner Haygood
Gary J. Whitman
Philip M. Tchou
William R. Geiser
Selin Carkaci
Patrick C. Brennan
Publication date
01-10-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9478-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2012

Journal of Digital Imaging 5/2012 Go to the issue