Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, 22:569 | Cite as

Pan-Canadian Evaluation of Irreversible Compression Ratios (“Lossy” Compression) for Development of National Guidelines

  • David Koff
  • Peter Bak
  • Paul Brownrigg
  • Danoush Hosseinzadeh
  • April Khademi
  • Alex Kiss
  • Luigi Lepanto
  • Tracy Michalak
  • Harry Shulman
  • Andrew Volkening
Article

Abstract

New technological advancements including multislice CT scanners and functional MRI, have dramatically increased the size and number of digital images generated by medical imaging departments. Despite the fact that the cost of storage is dropping, the savings are largely surpassed by the increasing volume of data being generated. While local area network bandwidth within a hospital is adequate for timely access to imaging data, efficiently moving the data between institutions requires wide area network bandwidth, which has a limited availability at a national level. A solution to address those issues is the use of lossy compression as long as there is no loss of relevant information. The goal of this study was to determine levels at which lossy compression can be confidently used in diagnostic imaging applications. In order to provide a fair assessment of existing compression tools, we tested and compared the two most commonly adopted DISCOM compression algorithms: JPEG and JPEG-2000. We conducted an extensive pan-Canadian evaluation of lossy compression applied to seven anatomical areas and five modalities using two recognized techniques: objective methods or diagnostic accuracy and subjective assessment based on Just Noticeable Difference. By incorporating both diagnostic accuracy and subjective evaluation techniques, enabled us to define a range of compression for each modality and body part tested. The results of our study suggest that at low levels of compression, there was no significant difference between the performance of lossy JPEG and lossy JPEG 2000, and that they are both appropriate to use for reporting on medical images. At higher levels, lossy JPEG proved to be more effective than JPEG 2000 in some cases, mainly neuro CT. More evaluation is required to assess the effect of compression on thin slice CT. We provide a table of recommended compression ratios for each modality and anatomical area investigated, to be integrated in the Canadian Association of Radiologists standard for the use of lossy compression in medical imaging.

Key words

Compression JPEG2000 digital imaging lossy compression JPEG 

References

  1. 1.
    Bak P: Will the use of irreversible compression become a standard of practice? SCAR News 18(1):10, 2006Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brislawn CM, Quirk MD: Image compression with the JPEG-2000 standard. In: Driggers RD Ed. Encyclopedia of Optical Engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003, pp. 780–785Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iyriboz TA, Zukoski MJ, Hopper KD, Stagg PL: A comparison of Wavelet and JPEG lossy compression methods applied to medical images. J Digital Imaging 12(2) suppl 1:14–17, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Source CAR (Canadian Association of Radiologists) Annual meeting, September 2005, Lake Louise, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slone RM: Assessment of visually lossless irreversible image compression: Comparison of three methods by using an image-comparison workstation. Radiology (215):543–553, 2000Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, Nafziger J, Fan J, Lubin J: Use of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images. J Digit Imaging 17(40):258–263, 2004, DecGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foos DH, Muka E, Slone RM, Erickson BJ, Flynn MJ, Clunie DA, Hildebrand L, Kohm K, Young S: JPEG 2000 compression of medical imagery. Med Imag Proc SPIE 3980:85–96, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finnis K: A Review and Comparison of Medical Image Compression. Study Report 2004; Atamai Inc, Calgary, AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ACR Technical Standard for Electronic Practice of Medical Imaging ed. American College of Radiology; 2007 (Res 13). http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/med_phys/electronic_practice.aspx
  10. 10.
    Gailly J. L. Introduction to JPEG, Compression FAQ Part 2, March 1999 www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part2/
  11. 11.
    Christopoulos C, Skodras A, Ebrahimi T: The JPEG 2000 still image coding system: an overview. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 46(4):1103–1127, 2000, NovCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erickson BJ: Irreversible compression of medical images. J Digit Imaging (15):5–14, 2002Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anastassopoulos GK, Skodras AN: JPEG2000 ROI “Coding in Medical Imaging Applications”, Proc. 2nd LASTED Int. Conf. On Visualisation, Imaging and Image Processing (VIIP2002), pp. 783–788, Malaga, Spain, 9–12 Sep 2002Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erickson BJ, Manduca A, Palisson P, Persons KR, Earnest F, Savcenko V, Hangiandreou NJ: Wavelet compression of medical images. Radiology 206:599–607, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Obuchowski NA: Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 299:3–8, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Koff
    • 1
    • 6
  • Peter Bak
    • 2
  • Paul Brownrigg
    • 3
  • Danoush Hosseinzadeh
    • 1
  • April Khademi
    • 5
  • Alex Kiss
    • 1
  • Luigi Lepanto
    • 4
  • Tracy Michalak
    • 1
  • Harry Shulman
    • 1
  • Andrew Volkening
    • 1
  1. 1.Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Canada Health InfowayTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Fraser Health AuthoritySurreyCanada
  4. 4.CHUM—Hôpital Saint LucMontréalCanada
  5. 5.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Diagnostic ImagingMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations