ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
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.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
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 evaluate image quality (IQ) of for-processing (raw) and for-presentation (clinical) radiography images, under different exposure conditions and digital image post-processing algorithms, using a phantom that enables multiple detection tasks.
methodsA modified version of the radiography phantom described in the IAEA Human Health Series No. 39 publication was constructed, incorporating six additional Aluminum (Al) targets of thicknesses both smaller and larger than the standard one. Raw and clinical images were simultaneously acquired using two digital radiography units from different manufacturers, various exposure parameters and different examination protocols. The phantom images were read using the free IAEA software (ATIA) that estimates automatically various IQ-metrics in images of the original phantom. Since in the modified phantom had seven Al targets, images were read seven times, one for each different Al thickness. The IQ-metrics' values obtained were analyzed to investigate their dependence on incident air kerma on the image receptor, tube potential, examination protocol, image type (raw or clinical), Al-target thicknesses, and manufacturer.
resultsThe IQ-metric values calculated using the modified IAEA phantom images can be radically different between raw and clinical images, and between different manufacturers, irrespectively whether only the standard or all the different Al-target thicknesses are considered. The modulation transfer function (MTF) and the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) dependence on exposure conditions and post-processing algorithms do not always follow the same trends for raw and clinical images and/or different manufacturers, while the signal-difference-to-noise-ratio (SDNR) and the detectability index (d'), despite their differences, seem more appropriate to characterize IQ. However, the d' metric, which also considers both MTF and the normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS) should be considered more complete IQ-metric than SDNR.
conclusionsThough theoretically d' values should be calculated using raw images, clinical images can be also used, at least for constancy tests.
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.