与两个传统数字 X 射线成像系统相比，低剂量 2D/3D 狭缝扫描仪成像系统的图像质量的视觉评估,Diagnostics

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Diagnostics › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

与两个传统数字 X 射线成像系统相比，低剂量 2D/3D 狭缝扫描仪成像系统的图像质量的视觉评估
Diagnostics ( IF 3.0 ) Pub Date : 2021-10-19 , DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11101932
Ahmed Jibril Abdi _{1,

2} , Bo Mussmann _{1,

3} , Alistair Mackenzie ₄ , Oke Gerke _{1,

5} , Gitte Maria Jørgensen ₃ , Thor Eriksen Bechsgaard ₃ , Janni Jensen _{1,

3} , Lone Brunshøj Olsen ₃ , Poul Erik Andersen ₁

Affiliation

本研究的目的是评估低剂量 2D/3D 狭缝扫描仪 (LDSS) 成像系统与传统数字射线照相 (DR) 成像系统相比的图像质量。使用视觉分级分析（VGA）方法评估视觉图像质量。这种方法是一种主观方法，它使用人类观察者来评估和优化不同成像技术的射线照相图像。方法和材料：通过 LDSS 成像系统和两个传统的 DR 成像系统获得胸部拟人体模和膝部体模的 10 个后前 (PA) 和 10 个侧位 (LAT) 图像。这些图像以随机顺序显示给三名（胸部）放射科医师和三名经验丰富的（膝部）放射科医师，他们根据许多标准对图像进行评分。使用 Fleiss 的 kappa 和加权 kappa 评估观察者间和观察者内的一致性。结果：观察者之间一致性的统计比较显示良好的观察者间一致性，胸部和膝关节方案的 Fleiss 卡帕系数分别为 0.27-0.63 和 0.23-0.45。观察者内一致性的比较也显示出与胸部和膝关节方案的加权 kappa 系数分别为 0.27-0.63 和 0.23-0.45 的良好一致性。与 AP 和 LAT 胸部协议中的 DR 成像系统相比，LDSS 成像系统实现了显着更高的 VGA 图像质量（观察者内一致性的比较也显示出与胸部和膝关节方案的加权 kappa 系数分别为 0.27-0.63 和 0.23-0.45 的良好一致性。与 AP 和 LAT 胸部协议中的 DR 成像系统相比，LDSS 成像系统实现了显着更高的 VGA 图像质量（观察者内一致性的比较也显示出与胸部和膝关节方案的加权 kappa 系数分别为 0.27-0.63 和 0.23-0.45 的良好一致性。与 AP 和 LAT 胸部协议中的 DR 成像系统相比，LDSS 成像系统实现了显着更高的 VGA 图像质量（p < 0.001)。然而，LDSS 成像系统的图像质量低于一个 DR 系统 ( p ≤ 0.016)，但在膝关节协议中与其他 DR 系统的图像质量相当 ( p ≤ 0.27)。与 DR 系统相比，LDSS 成像系统实现了胸部方案 33-52% 和膝部方案 30-35% 的有效剂量节省。结论：这项工作表明，LDSS 成像系统有可能以低于 DR 系统的诊断质量和更低的有效剂量获取胸部和膝关节图像。

"点击查看英文标题和摘要"

Visual Evaluation of Image Quality of a Low Dose 2D/3D Slot Scanner Imaging System Compared to Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-ray Imaging Systems

The purpose of this study was to assess the image quality of the low dose 2D/3D slot scanner (LDSS) imaging system compared to conventional digital radiography (DR) imaging systems. Visual image quality was assessed using the visual grading analysis (VGA) method. This method is a subjective approach that uses a human observer to evaluate and optimise radiographic images for different imaging technologies. Methods and materials: ten posterior-anterior (PA) and ten lateral (LAT) images of a chest anthropomorphic phantoms and a knee phantom were acquired by an LDSS imaging system and two conventional DR imaging systems. The images were shown in random order to three (chest) radiologists and three experienced (knee) radiographers, who scored the images against a number of criteria. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa and weighted kappa. Results: the statistical comparison of the agreement between the observers showed good interobserver agreement, with Fleiss’ kappa coefficients of 0.27–0.63 and 0.23–0.45 for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. Comparison of intraobserver agreement also showed good agreement with weighted kappa coefficients of 0.27–0.63 and 0.23–0.45 for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. The LDSS imaging system achieved significantly higher VGA image quality compared to the DR imaging systems in the AP and LAT chest protocols (p < 0.001). However, the LDSS imaging system achieved lower image quality than one DR system (p ≤ 0.016) and equivalent image quality to the other DR systems (p ≤ 0.27) in the knee protocol. The LDSS imaging system achieved effective dose savings of 33–52% for the chest protocol and 30–35% for the knee protocol compared with DR systems. Conclusions: this work has shown that the LDSS imaging system has the potential to acquire chest and knee images at diagnostic quality and at a lower effective dose than DR systems.

更新日期：2021-10-19

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

公开下载

阅读更多本刊新发论文