Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 537–541 | Cite as

Influence of Image Metrics When Assessing Image Quality from a Test Object in Cardiac X-ray Systems: Part II

  • Roberto Sanchez
  • Eliseo Vano
  • Carlos Ubeda
  • Jose M. Fernandez
  • Stephen Balter
  • Bart Hoornaert


The images generated in modern IC laboratories are created with high-quality standard (1,024 × 1,024 pixels and 10–12 bits/pixel) enabling cardiologists to perform interventions in the best conditions. But these images are in most of the cases archived in a basic quality standard (512 × 512 pixels and 8 bits/pixel). The purpose of this work is to complete the research developed in a previous paper and analyze the influence of the matrix size and the bit depth reduction on the image quality acquired on a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom with a test object. The variation in contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and high contrast spatial resolution (HCSR) were investigated when the matrix size and the bit depth were independently modified for different phantom thicknesses. These two image quality parameters did not suffer noticeable alterations under bits depth reduction from 10 to 8 bits. Such a result seems to imply that bits depth reduction could be used to reduce file sizes with a suitable algorithm and without losing perceptible image quality information. But when the matrix size was reduced from 1,024 × 1,024 to 512 × 512 pixels, a reduction from 17% to 25% in HCSR was noticed when changing phantom thickness, and an increase of 27% in CNR was observed. These findings should be taken into account and it would be wise to conduct further investigations in the field of clinical images.


Image quality Test object Matrix size Bits depth Image metrics Cardiology 



The authors acknowledge the support of the Spanish grant SAF2009-10485 (Ministry of Science and Innovation). One of the authors (CU) acknowledges the support of the Direction of Research at Tarapaca University through senior research project No. 7713-10.


  1. 1.
    Elion JL: DICOM media interchange standards for cardiology: initial interoperability demonstration. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care :591–595, 1995Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silber S, Dörr R, Zindler G, Mühling H, Diebel T: Impact of various compression rates on interpretation of digital coronary angiograms. Int J Cardiol 60:195–200, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brennecke R, Bürgel U, Simon R, Rippin G, Fritsch HP, Becker T, Nissen SE: American College of Cardiology/European Society of Cardiology International Study of Angiographic Data Compression Phase III: measurement of image quality differences at varying levels of data compression. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:1388–1397, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kerensky RA, Cusma JT, Kubilis P, Simon R, Bashore TM, Hirshfeld Jr, JW, Holmes Jr, DR, Pepine CJ, Nissen SE: American College of Cardiology/European Society of Cardiology International Study of Angiographic Data Compression Phase I: The effect of lossy data compression on recognition of diagnostic features in digital coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:1370–1379, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nissen SE, Hirshfeld Jr, JW, Simon R: Introduction and background: the International Angiographic Compression study. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:1367–1369, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erickson BJ: Irreversible Compression of Medical Images. White Paper-Irreversible Compression of Medical Images. 2000. Available at: Accessed on 17 August 2011
  7. 7.
    Chuang K, Huang HK: Assessment of noise in a digital image using the join-count statistic and the Moran test. Phys Med Biol 37:357–369, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vano E, Ubeda C, Geiger B, Martinez LC, Balter S: Influence of image metrics when assessing image quality from a test object in cardiac X-ray systems. J Digit Imaging 24:331–338, 2011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rassow J, Schmaltz AA, Hentrich F, Streffer C: Effective doses to patients from paediatric cardiac catheterization. Br J Radiol 73:172–183, 2000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ICRU International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements: Patient dosimetry for x rays used in medical imaging ICRU Report 74. J. ICRU 5(2), 2005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perry et al: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition. ISBN 92-79-01258-4, 2006Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gagne RM, Boswell JS, Myers KJ: Signal detectability in digital radiography: spatial domain figures of merit. Med Phys 30:2180–2193, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muhogora WE, Devetti A, Padovani R, Msaki P, Bonutti F: Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems. Radiat Prot Dosim 129:231–236, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Sanchez
    • 1
  • Eliseo Vano
    • 2
  • Carlos Ubeda
    • 3
  • Jose M. Fernandez
    • 1
  • Stephen Balter
    • 4
  • Bart Hoornaert
    • 5
  1. 1.Medical PhysicsHospital Clinico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC)MadridSpain
  2. 2.Radiology DepartmentComplutense University and San Carlos HospitalMadridSpain
  3. 3.Clinical Sciences Department, Faculty of the Science of HealthTarapaca UniversityAricaChile
  4. 4.Columbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.PhilipsHealthcareBU Interventional X-Ray, R&DBestThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations