Publications

Detailed Information

The Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluation

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorPark, Hye Jung-
dc.contributor.authorJung, Seung Eun-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Young Joon-
dc.contributor.authorCho, Woo Il-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Seung Hyup-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Ki Hwang-
dc.contributor.authorDo, Kyung Hyun-
dc.date.accessioned2012-07-02T06:54:14Z-
dc.date.available2012-07-02T06:54:14Z-
dc.date.issued2009-10-
dc.identifier.citationKOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY; Vol.10 5; 490-495ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn1229-6929-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/78105-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To evaluate whether there is a relationship between subjective parameters determined by a reviewer (spatial resolution, low contrast resolution, and artifacts) and objective parameters (the CT number of water, noise, and image uniformity) in CT phantom image evaluations. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the CT results of phantom image evaluations conducted by Korean Institute for Accreditation of Medical Image (KIAMI) from May 2007 to June 2007. We compared the objective parameters against the pass or fail groups for the subjective parameters. We also evaluated whether there is a relationship between the artifact types and the other subjective parameters. Results: The mean noise value was significantly higher in the fail groups for the subjective parameters compared to the pass groups (p = 0.006). Specifically, noise and low contrast resolution were found to have a statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0. 183, p < 0.001). In the fail group for low contrast resolution, the failure due to artifacts was significantly higher than the pass group (p < 0.001). In contrast, no statistically significant differences were found for the mean CT number of water, noise, or image uniformity based on the types of artifacts. Conclusion: Subjective CT image parameters evaluated by a reviewer correlate with objectively measured parameters, especially noise. Therefore, a stricter noise standard might be able to improve the subjective parameters results, such as low contrast resolution.ko_KR
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherKOREAN RADIOLOGICAL SOCko_KR
dc.subjectComputed tomography (CT)ko_KR
dc.subjectPhantomsko_KR
dc.subjectimage qualityko_KR
dc.titleThe Relationship between Subjective and Objective Parameters in CT Phantom Image Evaluationko_KR
dc.typeArticleko_KR
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor박혜정-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor정승은-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이영준-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor조우일-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor도경현-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김승협-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김기황-
dc.identifier.doi10.3348/kjr.2009.10.5.490-
dc.citation.journaltitleKOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY-
dc.description.citedreferencePark HJ, 2008, KOREAN J RADIOL, V9, P354, DOI 10.3348/kjr.2008.9.4.354-
dc.description.citedreferenceIM TH, 2007, 1 KIAMI, P1-
dc.description.citedreference*KIAMI DEP ED, 2006, WORKSH EX QUAL ASS P, P141-
dc.description.citedreference*FLUK CORP, 2005, NUCL ASS 76 410 4130-
dc.description.citedreference*KIAMI DEP ED, 2005, WORKSH EX QUAL ASS P, P13-
dc.description.citedreferenceMcCollough CH, 2004, MED PHYS, V31, P2423, DOI 10.1118/1.1769632-
dc.description.citedreferenceMCCOLLOUGH CM, 2000, CATEGORICAL COURSE D, P189-
dc.description.citedreferenceWIL R, 1998, CT IMAGE QUALITY-
dc.description.citedreferenceEUCLID S, 1994, COMPUT TOMOGR, P174-
dc.description.citedreferenceBETHESDA MD, 1988, 99 NCRP-
dc.description.citedreferenceJUDY PF, 1977, 1 AAPM-
dc.description.citedreference*ACR, CT ACCR PROGR REQ-
dc.description.tc1-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share