Samei Ehsan, Rowberg Alan, Avraham Ellie, Cornelius Craig
Department of Radiology, Physics, and Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
J Digit Imaging. 2004 Dec;17(4):271-8. doi: 10.1007/s10278-004-1031-5.
In recent years, notable progress has been made on standardization of medical image presentations in the definition and implementation of the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF). In parallel, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 18 has provided much needed guidelines and tools for visual and quantitative assessment of medical display quality. In spite of these advances, however, there are still notable gaps in the effectiveness of DICOM GSDF to assure consistent and high-quality display of medical images. In additions the degree of correlation between display technical data and diagnostic usability and performance of displays remains unclear. This article proposes three specific steps that DICOM, AAPM, and ACR may collectively take to bridge the gap between technical performance and clinical use: (1) DICOM does not provide means and acceptance criteria to evaluate the conformance of a display device to GSDF or to address other image quality characteristics. DICOM can expand beyond luminance response, extending the measurable, quantifiable elements of TG18 such as reflection and resolution. (2) In a large picture archiving and communication system (PACS) installation, it is critical to continually track the appropriate use and performance of multiple display devices. DICOM may help with this task by adding a Device Service Class to the standard to provide for communication and control of image quality parameters between applications and devices, (3) The question of clinical significance of image quality metrics has rarely been addressed by prior efforts. In cooperation with AAPM, the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology (SCAR), DICOM may help to initiate research that will determine the clinical consequence of variations in image quality metrics (eg, GSDF conformance) and to define what constitutes image quality from a diagnostic perspective. Implementation of these three initiatives may further the reach and impact of DICOM toward quality medicine.
近年来,在医学数字成像和通信(DICOM)灰度标准显示功能(GSDF)的定义和实施方面,医学图像呈现的标准化取得了显著进展。与此同时,美国医学物理学家协会(AAPM)任务组18为医学显示器质量的视觉和定量评估提供了急需的指导方针和工具。然而,尽管有这些进展,DICOM GSDF在确保医学图像一致且高质量显示的有效性方面仍存在显著差距。此外,显示器技术数据与诊断可用性及性能之间的相关程度仍不明确。本文提出了DICOM、AAPM和美国放射学会(ACR)可以共同采取的三个具体步骤,以弥合技术性能与临床应用之间的差距:(1)DICOM未提供评估显示设备是否符合GSDF或解决其他图像质量特征的方法和验收标准。DICOM可以超越亮度响应,扩展TG18中可测量、可量化的元素,如反射和分辨率。(2)在大型图像存档与通信系统(PACS)安装中,持续跟踪多个显示设备的正确使用和性能至关重要。DICOM可以通过在标准中添加设备服务类来帮助完成这项任务,以实现应用程序与设备之间图像质量参数的通信和控制。(3)图像质量指标的临床意义问题此前很少有人涉及。与AAPM、美国放射学会(ACR)和放射学计算机应用协会(SCAR)合作,DICOM可以帮助启动研究,确定图像质量指标(如GSDF符合性)变化的临床后果,并从诊断角度定义什么构成图像质量。实施这三项举措可能会进一步扩大DICOM在优质医疗方面的影响力。