Körner Markus, Treitl Marcus, Schaetzing Ralph, Pfeifer Klaus-Jürgen, Reiser Maximilian, Wirth Stefan
Department of Clinical Radiology Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany.
Invest Radiol. 2006 Jul;41(7):593-9. doi: 10.1097/01.rli.0000223765.73182.55.
We sought to evaluate the low-contrast performance of a newly developed needle image plate/line scanner (NIP) computed radiography system in comparison with a standard powder image plate/flying-spot scanner (PIP) system.
A total of 36 images of a CDRAD phantom, simulating low-contrast structures with different drill holes of different diameters, were obtained with both imaging systems using 9 different exposure variables. All images had window and level set to generate consistent density and contrast. In addition, multiscale contrast-dependent contrast amplification was applied to some of the images. All images obtained were printed and presented to a total of 10 observers (5 radiologists, 5 engineers/physicists), who were blinded to both the image plate and parameter setting used. The smallest detectable drill hole depth (= contrast) correctly identified was recorded for each diameter. The median values observed were calculated and tested for statistical differences between PIP and NIP using Student t test for matched pairs (level of significance P < or = 0.05).
At all but 2 settings of the variables, NIP images depicted significantly lower contrast levels (= lower depth of drill holes) compared with PIP images. The 2 settings also showed a trend towards better low contrast depiction with NIP. In no case was low contrast performance better using PIP images.
Images obtained with needle image plate/line scanner provide superior low contrast performance compared with the images obtained with powder image plate/flying-spot scanner.
我们试图评估新开发的针状成像板/线扫描器(NIP)计算机X线摄影系统与标准粉末成像板/飞点扫描器(PIP)系统相比的低对比度性能。
使用两种成像系统,通过9种不同的曝光变量,共获得了36张模拟具有不同直径钻孔的低对比度结构的CDRAD体模图像。所有图像的窗宽和窗位均设置为产生一致的密度和对比度。此外,对部分图像应用了多尺度对比度依赖的对比度增强。将获得的所有图像打印出来,交给总共10名观察者(5名放射科医生、5名工程师/物理学家),他们对所使用的成像板和参数设置均不知情。记录每种直径下正确识别的最小可检测钻孔深度(=对比度)。计算观察到的中位数,并使用配对t检验(显著性水平P≤0.05)对PIP和NIP之间的统计差异进行检验。
除2种变量设置外,在所有其他设置下,与PIP图像相比,NIP图像显示出显著更低的对比度水平(=更低的钻孔深度)。这2种设置也显示出NIP在低对比度描绘方面有更好的趋势。使用PIP图像时,低对比度性能在任何情况下都没有更好。
与粉末成像板/飞点扫描器获得的图像相比,针状成像板/线扫描器获得的图像具有更好的低对比度性能。