ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Impact of flexible noise control (FNC) image processing parameters on portable chest radiography.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative evaluation of a deep learning-based noise reduction algorithm in digital radiography using noise power spectrum analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Impact of flexible noise control (FNC) image processing parameters on portable chest radiography.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a lack of understanding in the performance of flexible noise control (FNC) processing, which is used in digital radiography on a scanner vendor and has four parameters each involving multiple options. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of FNC on portable chest imaging. An anthropomorphic chest phantom was imaged using a clinical chest program with 85 kV and five radiation dose levels at 40″ source-to-image distance with software-based scatter reduction method. All images were processed without and with FNC. Noise analysis was performed in two regions of interest (ROI) on subtracted noise-only images, and line profiles were generated through a lung-rib interface. In addition, noise power spectra (NPS) analysis was performed in solid water phantoms of 10 and 20 cm thicknesses, using the same acquisition program and a range of dose levels. Last, feedback on retrospectively deidentified, reprocessed, and randomized clinical images from 20 portable chest exams was gathered from two thoracic radiologists. Noise reduction performances of FNC were demonstrated, with the level depending on specific FNC parameters, dose levels, ROI placement, and phantom sizes. Higher frequency textural patterns were revealed through the NPS analysis, which varied based on FNC parameters, dose levels, and phantom sizes. Overall, the vendor default parameter FGA0.5 yielded the highest noise reduction and textural artifacts. Radiologist feedback showed consistent preference of no FNC due to the presence of textural artifacts in the FNC-processed images. An algorithm improvement to avoid introducing artifacts would be desired.
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.