ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Comparison of human observer impression of X-ray fluoroscopy and angiography image quality with technical changes to image quality.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Spatio-temporal variability in clinical fluoroscopy and cine angiography images combined with nonlinear image processing prevents the application of traditional image quality measurements in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. We aimed to develop and validate methods to measure human observer impressions of the image quality. Approach: Multi-frame images of the thorax of a euthanized pig were acquired to provide an anatomical background. The detector dose was varied from 6 to 200 nGy (increments 2×), and 0.6 and 1.0 mm focal spots were used. Two coronary stents with/without 0.5 mm separation and a synthetic right coronary artery (RCA) with hemispherical defects were embedded into the background images as test objects. The quantitative observer ( Results: The proportion of correct detection of stent separation and the number of reported right coronary artery defects changed significantly with detector dose increment in the 6 to 100 nGy ( Conclusions: Both quantitative and qualitative measurements of observer impression of the image quality were sensitive to image quality changes associated with changing the detector dose and focal spot size. These findings encourage future work that uses qualitative image quality measurements to assess clinical fluoroscopy and angiography image quality.
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.