ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Digital radiography image quality evaluation using various phantoms and software.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimising the IAEA remote and automatic quality control for digital radiography: phantom design and reproducibility investigation.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a 3D printed phantom for image quality assessment in fluoroscopy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Technical note: A proposal of a novel figure-of-merit defined from task-based detectability index in abdominal radiography.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using a modified version of the IAEA radiography phantom allowing multiple detection tasks: A multi detection task IAEA radiography phantom.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Design and Use of a Custom Phantom for Regular Tests of Radiography Apparatus: A Feasibility Study.Journal of imaging · 2024Article
- Two-Dimensional Mammography Imaging Techniques for Screening Women with Silicone Breast Implants: A Pilot Phantom Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Automated Quality Control Solution for Radiographic Imaging of Lung Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for-processing and for-presentation images.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Digital radiography image quality evaluation using various phantoms and software.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effect of the exposure parameters on image quality (IQ) metrics of phantom images, obtained automatically using software or from visual evaluation.
methodsThree commercial phantoms and a homemade phantom constructed according to the instructions given in the IAEA Human Health Series No. 39 publication were used, along with the respective software that estimate automatically various IQ metrics. Images with various exposure parameters were acquired in a digital radiography (DR) unit. For the commercial phantoms, visual evaluations were also performed. The IQ scores obtained were analyzed to investigate the effects of increasing incident air kerma (IAK), tube potential (kVp), additional filtration, and acquisition protocol on IQ.
resultsThe effects of the exposure parameters on the IQ metrics, determined with the commercial and the IAEA phantoms, were not the same. For example, clear trends of improvement of IQ scores with increased IAK and reduction of most IQ scores with increased kVp were observed mostly with the IAEA phantom, but not with the commercial phantoms (for both automatic and visual scoring methods). For all phantoms, the maximum variations in IQ scores observed for repeated identical exposures were almost always below 10% with automatic evaluation whereas, for visual evaluation, reached 17%.
conclusionsFailure to detect some expected trends with the complex commercial phantoms may be attributed to the fact that IQ in DR is more strongly affected by the post-processing procedures, which may mask the effect of other parameters on IQ, something that was not observed with the simple IAEA phantom.
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.