Download PDF

Journal of Digital Imaging

, 2:194 | Cite as

Physics and statistics of medical imaging

  • David G. Brown
  • Robert F. Wagner
Article

Abstract

Extraordinary progress has been made over the last two decades in the development and dissemination of new medical imaging technologies. The development of computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, as well as major innovations to the conventional imaging modalities, have revolutionized medical diagnostic imaging. Despite their many differences, all of these modalities can be viewed from a common perspective: being described in terms of the underlying physical properties imaged, the type of radiation/detection system used to produce the images, and the imaging performance that the modality achieves, both in absolute terms and relative to that of a conceptual ideal observer.

This is a US government work. There are no restrictions on its use.

Key words

imaging system noise performance evaluation radiation 
Download to read the full article text

References

  1. 1.
    Ter-Pogossian MM: The Physical Aspects of Diagnostic Radiology. New York, NY, Harper & Row, 1967Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kelley JP: History of the development of diagnostic x-ray systems, in Wright DJ (ed): Physics of Diagnostic Radiology. USDHEW Publication No FDA 74-8006, 1973, pp 2–50Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sorenson J, Phelps M: Physics in Nuclear Medicine. New York, NY, Grune & Stratton, 1980Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wells PNT: Biomedical Ultrasonics. San Diego, CA, Academic, 1977Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newton TH, Potts DG (eds): Radiology of the Skull and Brain 5: Technical Aspects of Computed Tomography. St Louis, MO, Mosby, 1981Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walker MD (ed): Research issues in positron emission tomograph.. Annals of Neurology 15:S1–S204, 1984 (suppl)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Partain CL, Price RR, Patton JA, et al (eds): Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Philadelphia, PA, Saunders, 1988Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kruger RA, Riederer SJ: Basic Concepts of Digital Subtraction Angiography. Boston, MA, Hall, 1984Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alvarez RE: Limitations on biomagnetic imaging, in Schneider RH, Dwyer SJ III (eds): Medical Imaging II: Image Formation, Detection, Processing, and Interpretation. Proc SPIE 914: 2–9, 1988Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rose A: Vision: Human and Electronic. New York, NY, Plenum, 1974Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shaw R: Evaluating the efficiency of imaging processes. Rep Prog Phys 41:1103–1155, 1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dainty JC, Shaw R: Image Science, New York, NY, Academic, 1974Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wagner RF, Brown DG, Pastel MS: Application of information theory to the assessment of computed tomography. Med Phys 6:83–94, 1979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wagner RF, Barnes GT, Askins BS: Effect of reduced scatter on radiographic information content and patient exposure: A quantitative demonstration. Med Phys 7:13–18, 1980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alvarez RE: Extraction of energy dependent information in radiography. Doctoral thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 1976;see also Alvarez RE, Macovski A: Energy-selective reconstructions in x-ray computerized tomography. Phys Med Biol 21:733–744, 1976Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alvarez RE, Marshall WH, Lewis R: Tissue characterization using energy-selective computer tomography, in Gray JE, Haus AG, Properzio WS, et al (eds): Application of Optical Instrumentation in Medicine IX. Proc SPIE 273: 301–307, 1981Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sones RA, Tesic MM, Barnes GT: Dual-energy chest radiography. Physics Today S44–S45, 1987 (suppl)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mazziotta JC, Phelps ME: Human sensory stimulation and deprivation: Positron emission tomographic results and strategies. In Walker MD (ed): Research Issues in Positron Emission Tomography. Ann Neurol 15:S50–S60, 1984 (suppl)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kressel HY (ed): Magnetic Resonance Annual: 1988. New York, NY, Raven, 1988Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wagner RF, Brown DG: Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems. Phys Med Biol 30:489–518, 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macovski A: Medical Imaging Systems, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1983Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barrett HH, Swindell W: Radiological Imaging: The Theory of Image Formation, Detection, and Processing, New York, NY, Academic, 1981Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations: The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences, 1980Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Bioeffects Committee: Bioeffects considerations for the safety of diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med 7, 1988 (suppl)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wagner RF, Weaver KE: Prospects for x-ray exposure reduction using rare-earth intensifying screens. Radiology 118:183–188, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wagner RF: Fast Fourier digital quantum mottle analysis with application to rare-earth intensifying screen systems. Med Phys 4:157–162, 1977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Larsen LE, Jacobi JH (eds): Medical Applications of Microwave Imaging. New York, NY, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1986Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wagner RF, Jennings RJ: The bottom line in radiologic dose reduction. Proc SPIE 206:60–66, 1979Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muntz EP, Jafroudi H, Jennings R., Bernstein H: An approach to specifying a minimum dose system for mammography using multiparameter optimization techniques. Med Phys 12:5–12, 1985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gagne RM: Geometrical aspects of computed tomography: Sensitivity profile and exposure profile. Med Phys 16:29–37, 1989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Medical imaging (special feature). Computers in Physics 2: 16–49, 1988Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Joseph PM: Artifacts in computed tomography, in Newton TH, Potts DG (eds): Radiology of the Skull and Brain 5: Technical Aspects of Computed Tomography. St Louis, MO, C.V. Mosby, 1981, pp 3596–3992Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements: Modulation transfer function of screen-film systems. ICRU Report 41, 1986Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    O’Neil EL: Introduction to Statistical Optics. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1963Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doi K, Holje G, Loo L-N, Chan H-P, Sandrik JM, Jennings RJ, Wagner RF: MTF’s and Wiener spectra of radiographic screen-film systems. Washington, DC, US Dept HHS, Publ. FDA 82-8187, US GPO, 1982Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sandrik JM, Wagner RF, Hanson KM: Radiographic screen-film noise power spectrum: Calibration and intercomparison. Appl Opt 21:3597–3601, 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sandrik JM, Wagner RF: Absolute measures of physical image quality: Measurement and application to radiographic magnification. Med Phys 9:540–549, 1982CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Harmon LD, Julesz B: Masking in visual recognition: effects of two-dimensional filtered noise. Science 180:1194–1197, 1973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van Trees HL: Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory. New York, NY, Wiley, 1968Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Whalen AD: Detection of Signals in Noise. Orlando, FL, Academic, 1971Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fukunaga K: Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition. Orlando, FL, Academic, 1972Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Green DM, Swets JA: Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Huntington, NY, R.E. Krieger, 1974Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wagner RF, Brown DG: Overview of a unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging MI-1:210–214, 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wagner RF, Brown DG: From the Rose model to diffraction tomography: Statistics of low contrast images, in Morris GM (ed): Statistical Optics. Proc SPIE 976:101–108, 1988Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Burgess A, Ghandeharian H: Visual signal detection. I. Ability to use phase information. J Opt Soc Am A1:900–905, 1984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Burgess AE, Ghandeharian H: Visual signal detection. II. Signal-location identification. J Opt Soc Am A1:906–910, 1984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Burgess A: Visual signal detection. III. On Bayesian use of prior knowledge and cross correlation. J Opt Soc Am A2:1498–1507, 1985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Burgess AE, Colborne B: Visual signal detection. IV. Observer inconsistency. J Opt Soc Am A5:617–627, 1988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wagner RF, Metz CE, Brown DG: Signal detection theory and medical image assessment, in Doi K, Lanzi L, Lin P-JP (eds): Recent Developments in Digital Imaging. New York, NY, American Institute of Physics, 1985, pp 39–59Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hanson KM: Method to evaluate image-recovery algorithms based on task performance. Proc SPIE 914:336–343, 1988Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Metz CE: ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging. Invest Radiol 21:720, 1986CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Burgess AE, Wagner RF, Jennings RJ, Barlow HB: Efficiency of human visual discrimination. Science 214:93–94, 1981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Myers KJ, Barrett HH, Borgstrom MC, Patton DD, Seeley GW: Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging. J Opt Soc Am A2:1752–1759, 1985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Myers KJ, Barrett HH: Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. J Opt Soc Am A4:2447–2457, 1987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Swets JA, Pickett RM: Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems: Methods from Signal Detection Theory. New York, NY, Academic, 1982Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • David G. Brown
    • 1
  • Robert F. Wagner
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Devices and Radiological HealthFood and Drug AdministrationRockville

Personalised recommendations