Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds
While previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the de...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of digital imaging 2012-10, Vol.25 (5), p.662-669 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 669 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 662 |
container_title | Journal of digital imaging |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Leong, David L. Rainford, Louise Haygood, Tamara Miner Whitman, Gary J. Tchou, Philip M. Geiser, William R. Carkaci, Selin Brennan, Patrick C. |
description | While previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the detection threshold and whether the median background intensity shift has been minimized by GSDF remains unknown. We set out to determine if the median background affected the detection of a low-contrast object in a clustered lumpy background, which simulated a mammography image, and to define the contrast detection threshold for these complex images. Clustered lumpy background images were created of different median intensities and disks of varying contrasts were inserted. A reader study was performed with 17 readers of varying skill level who scored with a five-point confidence scale whether a disk was present. The results were analyzed using reader operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. Contingency tables were used to determine the contrast detection threshold. No statistically significant difference was seen in the area under the ROC curve across all of the backgrounds. Contrast detection fell below 50 % between +3 and +2 gray levels. Our work supports the conclusion that Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine GSDF calibrated monitors do perceptually linearize detection performance across shifts in median background intensity. The contrast detection threshold was determined to be +3 gray levels above the background for an object of 1° visual angle. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10278-012-9478-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3447097</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1671351282</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-5e4a2739014c27ca24afef0e39e98aeb310ad4d78cccc5723c2164ae589cbf163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1OAyEURonR2Fp9ADdmEjduRrnAFNiYaGtrE00X_sQdoZSpU6dDhY7Rt5emtakmsoHknvvB5SB0DPgcMOYXATDhIsVAUsnigeygJrRBpJzwl13UxELyFISQDXQQwhRj4Bln-6hBSEYzkLSJ4Nn6Ii-MXhSuSlyedAed4X3Sf-j2kqJKOm42L-1ncq3N28S7uhqHQ7SX6zLYo_XeQk-9m8fObXo37A86V3epyTBdpJllmnAqMTBDuNGE6dzm2FJppdB2RAHrMRtzYeLKOKGGQJtpmwlpRjm0aQtdrnLn9Whmx8ZWC69LNffFTPsv5XShfleq4lVN3IeijHEseQw4Wwd4917bsFCzIhhblrqyrg4K2hziLxBBInr6B5262ldxPAWYAVBM2ZKCFWW8C8HbfPMYwGopRK2EqChELYWoZc_J9hSbjh8DESArIMRSNbF---r_Ur8BUGKUqQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1041130342</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Leong, David L. ; Rainford, Louise ; Haygood, Tamara Miner ; Whitman, Gary J. ; Tchou, Philip M. ; Geiser, William R. ; Carkaci, Selin ; Brennan, Patrick C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Leong, David L. ; Rainford, Louise ; Haygood, Tamara Miner ; Whitman, Gary J. ; Tchou, Philip M. ; Geiser, William R. ; Carkaci, Selin ; Brennan, Patrick C.</creatorcontrib><description>While previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the detection threshold and whether the median background intensity shift has been minimized by GSDF remains unknown. We set out to determine if the median background affected the detection of a low-contrast object in a clustered lumpy background, which simulated a mammography image, and to define the contrast detection threshold for these complex images. Clustered lumpy background images were created of different median intensities and disks of varying contrasts were inserted. A reader study was performed with 17 readers of varying skill level who scored with a five-point confidence scale whether a disk was present. The results were analyzed using reader operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. Contingency tables were used to determine the contrast detection threshold. No statistically significant difference was seen in the area under the ROC curve across all of the backgrounds. Contrast detection fell below 50 % between +3 and +2 gray levels. Our work supports the conclusion that Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine GSDF calibrated monitors do perceptually linearize detection performance across shifts in median background intensity. The contrast detection threshold was determined to be +3 gray levels above the background for an object of 1° visual angle.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0897-1889</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1618-727X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10278-012-9478-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22535193</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Area Under Curve ; Calibration ; Cohort Studies ; Confidence Intervals ; Contrast Sensitivity ; Data Display ; Digital imaging ; Disks ; False Positive Reactions ; Female ; Humans ; Image contrast ; Imaging ; Liquid Crystals ; Mammography - methods ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Monitors ; Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods ; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation ; Radiology ; Radiology Information Systems - standards ; Readers ; Reference Standards ; ROC Curve ; Thresholds</subject><ispartof>Journal of digital imaging, 2012-10, Vol.25 (5), p.662-669</ispartof><rights>Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-5e4a2739014c27ca24afef0e39e98aeb310ad4d78cccc5723c2164ae589cbf163</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-5e4a2739014c27ca24afef0e39e98aeb310ad4d78cccc5723c2164ae589cbf163</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447097/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447097/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27922,27923,53789,53791</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535193$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Leong, David L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rainford, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haygood, Tamara Miner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitman, Gary J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tchou, Philip M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geiser, William R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carkaci, Selin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brennan, Patrick C.</creatorcontrib><title>Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds</title><title>Journal of digital imaging</title><addtitle>J Digit Imaging</addtitle><addtitle>J Digit Imaging</addtitle><description>While previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the detection threshold and whether the median background intensity shift has been minimized by GSDF remains unknown. We set out to determine if the median background affected the detection of a low-contrast object in a clustered lumpy background, which simulated a mammography image, and to define the contrast detection threshold for these complex images. Clustered lumpy background images were created of different median intensities and disks of varying contrasts were inserted. A reader study was performed with 17 readers of varying skill level who scored with a five-point confidence scale whether a disk was present. The results were analyzed using reader operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. Contingency tables were used to determine the contrast detection threshold. No statistically significant difference was seen in the area under the ROC curve across all of the backgrounds. Contrast detection fell below 50 % between +3 and +2 gray levels. Our work supports the conclusion that Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine GSDF calibrated monitors do perceptually linearize detection performance across shifts in median background intensity. The contrast detection threshold was determined to be +3 gray levels above the background for an object of 1° visual angle.</description><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Confidence Intervals</subject><subject>Contrast Sensitivity</subject><subject>Data Display</subject><subject>Digital imaging</subject><subject>Disks</subject><subject>False Positive Reactions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image contrast</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Liquid Crystals</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Monitors</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiology Information Systems - standards</subject><subject>Readers</subject><subject>Reference Standards</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Thresholds</subject><issn>0897-1889</issn><issn>1618-727X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1OAyEURonR2Fp9ADdmEjduRrnAFNiYaGtrE00X_sQdoZSpU6dDhY7Rt5emtakmsoHknvvB5SB0DPgcMOYXATDhIsVAUsnigeygJrRBpJzwl13UxELyFISQDXQQwhRj4Bln-6hBSEYzkLSJ4Nn6Ii-MXhSuSlyedAed4X3Sf-j2kqJKOm42L-1ncq3N28S7uhqHQ7SX6zLYo_XeQk-9m8fObXo37A86V3epyTBdpJllmnAqMTBDuNGE6dzm2FJppdB2RAHrMRtzYeLKOKGGQJtpmwlpRjm0aQtdrnLn9Whmx8ZWC69LNffFTPsv5XShfleq4lVN3IeijHEseQw4Wwd4917bsFCzIhhblrqyrg4K2hziLxBBInr6B5262ldxPAWYAVBM2ZKCFWW8C8HbfPMYwGopRK2EqChELYWoZc_J9hSbjh8DESArIMRSNbF---r_Ur8BUGKUqQ</recordid><startdate>20121001</startdate><enddate>20121001</enddate><creator>Leong, David L.</creator><creator>Rainford, Louise</creator><creator>Haygood, Tamara Miner</creator><creator>Whitman, Gary J.</creator><creator>Tchou, Philip M.</creator><creator>Geiser, William R.</creator><creator>Carkaci, Selin</creator><creator>Brennan, Patrick C.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121001</creationdate><title>Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds</title><author>Leong, David L. ; Rainford, Louise ; Haygood, Tamara Miner ; Whitman, Gary J. ; Tchou, Philip M. ; Geiser, William R. ; Carkaci, Selin ; Brennan, Patrick C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-5e4a2739014c27ca24afef0e39e98aeb310ad4d78cccc5723c2164ae589cbf163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Confidence Intervals</topic><topic>Contrast Sensitivity</topic><topic>Data Display</topic><topic>Digital imaging</topic><topic>Disks</topic><topic>False Positive Reactions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image contrast</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Liquid Crystals</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Monitors</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiology Information Systems - standards</topic><topic>Readers</topic><topic>Reference Standards</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Thresholds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leong, David L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rainford, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haygood, Tamara Miner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitman, Gary J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tchou, Philip M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geiser, William R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carkaci, Selin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brennan, Patrick C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of digital imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leong, David L.</au><au>Rainford, Louise</au><au>Haygood, Tamara Miner</au><au>Whitman, Gary J.</au><au>Tchou, Philip M.</au><au>Geiser, William R.</au><au>Carkaci, Selin</au><au>Brennan, Patrick C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds</atitle><jtitle>Journal of digital imaging</jtitle><stitle>J Digit Imaging</stitle><addtitle>J Digit Imaging</addtitle><date>2012-10-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>662</spage><epage>669</epage><pages>662-669</pages><issn>0897-1889</issn><eissn>1618-727X</eissn><abstract>While previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the detection threshold and whether the median background intensity shift has been minimized by GSDF remains unknown. We set out to determine if the median background affected the detection of a low-contrast object in a clustered lumpy background, which simulated a mammography image, and to define the contrast detection threshold for these complex images. Clustered lumpy background images were created of different median intensities and disks of varying contrasts were inserted. A reader study was performed with 17 readers of varying skill level who scored with a five-point confidence scale whether a disk was present. The results were analyzed using reader operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. Contingency tables were used to determine the contrast detection threshold. No statistically significant difference was seen in the area under the ROC curve across all of the backgrounds. Contrast detection fell below 50 % between +3 and +2 gray levels. Our work supports the conclusion that Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine GSDF calibrated monitors do perceptually linearize detection performance across shifts in median background intensity. The contrast detection threshold was determined to be +3 gray levels above the background for an object of 1° visual angle.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>22535193</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10278-012-9478-2</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0897-1889 |
ispartof | Journal of digital imaging, 2012-10, Vol.25 (5), p.662-669 |
issn | 0897-1889 1618-727X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3447097 |
source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Area Under Curve Calibration Cohort Studies Confidence Intervals Contrast Sensitivity Data Display Digital imaging Disks False Positive Reactions Female Humans Image contrast Imaging Liquid Crystals Mammography - methods Medicine Medicine & Public Health Monitors Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation Radiology Radiology Information Systems - standards Readers Reference Standards ROC Curve Thresholds |
title | Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T06%3A14%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Verification%20of%20DICOM%20GSDF%20in%20Complex%20Backgrounds&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20digital%20imaging&rft.au=Leong,%20David%20L.&rft.date=2012-10-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=662&rft.epage=669&rft.pages=662-669&rft.issn=0897-1889&rft.eissn=1618-727X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10278-012-9478-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1671351282%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1041130342&rft_id=info:pmid/22535193&rfr_iscdi=true |