ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Expanding generalized contrast-to-noise ratio into a clinically relevant measure of lesion detectability by considering size and spatial resolution.
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-Depth optimization and characterization of prostatic and penile vessel imaging with Ferumoxytol-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Medical physics · 2026Article
- A Novel Method for Motion Blur Detection and Quantification Using Signal Analysis on a Controlled Empirical Image Dataset.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Expanding generalized contrast-to-noise ratio into a clinically relevant measure of lesion detectability by considering size and spatial resolution.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Early image quality metrics were often designed with clinicians in mind, and ideal metrics would correlate with the subjective opinion of practitioners. Over time, adaptive beamformers and other post-processing methods have become more common, and these newer methods often violate assumptions of earlier image quality metrics, invalidating the meaning of those metrics. The result is that beamformers may "manipulate" metrics without producing more clinical information. Approach: In this work, Smith et al.'s signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metric for lesion detectability is considered, and a more robust version, here called generalized SNR (gSNR), is proposed that uses generalized contrast-to-noise ratio (gCNR) as a core. It is analytically shown that for Rayleigh distributed data, gCNR is a function of Smith et al.'s Results: gSNR is shown to be equivalent to SNR for delay-and-sum (DAS) beamformed data, as intended. However, it is shown to be more robust against transformations and report lesion detectability more accurately for non-Rayleigh distributed data. In the simulation included, the SNR of DAS was Conclusions: Using gCNR as a component to estimate gSNR creates a robust measure of lesion detectability. Like SNR, gSNR can be compared with the Rose criterion and may better correlate with clinical assessments of image quality for modern beamformers.
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.