ArticleMedical physics2018
Inter-laboratory comparison of channelized hotelling observer computation.
Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate and efficient measurement of channelized Hotelling observer-based low-contrast detectability on the ACR CT accreditation phantom.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Assessment of task-based image quality for abdominal CT protocols linked with national diagnostic reference levels.European radiology · 2022Article
- Medical image quality metrics for foveated model observers.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021Article
- Foveated Model Observers for Visual Search in 3D Medical Images.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2021Article
- A Web-Based Software Platform for Efficient and Quantitative CT Image Quality Assessment and Protocol Optimization.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2021Article
- Efficient Evaluation of Low-contrast Detectability of Deep-CNN-based CT Reconstruction Using Channelized Hotelling Observer on the ACR Accreditation Phantom.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical EngineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe task-based assessment of image quality using model observers is increasingly used for the assessment of different imaging modalities. However, the performance computation of model observers needs standardization as well as a well-established trust in its implementation methodology and uncertainty estimation. The purpose of this work was to determine the degree of equivalence of the channelized Hotelling observer performance and uncertainty estimation using an intercomparison exercise. MATERIALS AND
methodsImage samples to estimate model observer performance for detection tasks were generated from two-dimensional CT image slices of a uniform water phantom. A common set of images was sent to participating laboratories to perform and document the following tasks: (a) estimate the detectability index of a well-defined CHO and its uncertainty in three conditions involving different sized targets all at the same dose, and (b) apply this CHO to an image set where ground truth was unknown to participants (lower image dose). In addition, and on an optional basis, we asked the participating laboratories to (c) estimate the performance of real human observers from a psychophysical experiment of their choice. Each of the 13 participating laboratories was confidentially assigned a participant number and image sets could be downloaded through a secure server. Results were distributed with each participant recognizable by its number and then each laboratory was able to modify their results with justification as model observer calculation are not yet a routine and potentially error prone.
resultsDetectability index increased with signal size for all participants and was very consistent for 6 mm sized target while showing higher variability for 8 and 10 mm sized target. There was one order of magnitude between the lowest and the largest uncertainty estimation.
conclusionsThis intercomparison helped define the state of the art of model observer performance computation and with thirteen participants, reflects openness and trust within the medical imaging community. The performance of a CHO with explicitly defined channels and a relatively large number of test images was consistently estimated by all participants. In contrast, the paper demonstrates that there is no agreement on estimating the variance of detectability in the training and testing setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.