ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for-processing and for-presentation images.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. 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.
- Optimising the IAEA remote and automatic quality control for digital radiography: phantom design and reproducibility investigation.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- A Study of Why We Need to Reassess Full Reference Image Quality Assessment with Medical Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Review
- Multi-centric clinical implementation of the remote and automated quality control programme for digital imaging in Malaysia: challenges and pitfalls.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for-processing and for-presentation images.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the impact of digital image post-processing algorithms on various image quality (IQ) metrics of radiographic images under different exposure conditions.
methodsA custom-made phantom constructed according to the instructions given in the IAEA Human Health Series No.39 publication was used, along with the respective software that automatically calculates various IQ metrics. Images with various exposure parameters were acquired with a digital radiography unit, which for each acquisition produces two images: one for-processing (raw) and one for-presentation (clinical). Various examination protocols were used, which incorporate diverse post-processing algorithms. The IQ metrics' values (IQ-scores) obtained were analyzed to investigate the effects of increasing incident air kerma (IAK) on the image receptor, tube potential (kVp), additional filtration, and examination protocol on image quality, and the differences between image type (raw or clinical).
resultsThe IQ-scores were consistent for repeated identical exposures for both raw and clinical images. The effect that changes in exposure parameters and examination protocol had on IQ-scores were different depending on the IQ metric and image type. The expected positive effect that increasing IAK and decreasing tube potential should have on IQ was clearly exhibited in two IQ metrics only, the signal difference-to-noise-ratio (SDNR) and the detectability index (d'), for both image types. No effect of additional filtration on any of the IQ metrics was detected on images of either type. An interesting finding of the study was that for all different image acquisition selections the d' scores were larger in raw images, whereas the other IQ metrics were larger in clinical images for most of the cases.
conclusionsSince IQ-scores of raw and their respective clinical images may be largely different, the same type of image should be consistently used for monitoring IQ constancy and when results from different X-ray systems are compared.
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.