Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 123, Issue 8, pp 586–592 | Cite as

Different pixel pitch and maximum luminance of medical grade displays may result in different evaluations of digital radiography images

  • Alberto Laffranchi
  • Calogero Cicero
  • Manuela Lualdi
  • Chiara M. Ciniselli
  • Giuseppina Calareso
  • Stefano Canestrini
  • Francesca G. Greco
  • Enrico Alberioli
  • Claudia Cavatorta
  • Alessandro Guarise
  • Emanuele Pignoli
  • Maddalena Plebani
  • Davide Scaramuzza
  • Claudio Siciliano
  • Paolo Verderio
  • Alfonso Marchianò
CHEST RADIOLOGY
  • 116 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the effects of display pixel pitch and maximum luminance on intra- and inter-observer reproducibility and observer performance when evaluating chest lesions and bone fractures.

Materials and methods

This was a multi-institutional study for a retrospective interpretation of selected digital radiography images. Overall, 82 images were selected by senior radiologists, including 50 cases of chest lesions and 32 cases of bone fractures. These images were displayed at two pixel pitches (0.212 and 0.165 mm size pixels) and two maximum luminance values (250 and 500 cd/m2) and reviewed twice by senior and junior radiologists. All the observers had to indicate the likelihood of the presence of the lesions and to rate the relative confidence of their assessment. Cohen Kappa statistic was computed to estimate the reproducibility in correctly identifying lesions; for multi-reader-multi-case (MRMC) analysis, weighted Jackknife Alternative Free-response Receiver Operating Characteristic (wJAFROC) statistical tools was applied.

Results

The intra-radiologist and inter-observer reproducibility values were the highest for the 0.165 mm size pixel at 500 cd/m2 display, for both chest lesions and bone fractures evaluations. As regards chest lesions, observer performances were significantly greater with 0.165 mm size pixel display at 500 cd/m2 than with lower maximum luminance and/or larger pixel pitch displays. Concerning bone fractures, the performance obtained with 0.212 mm size pixel display at 250 cd/m2 was statistically lower than that obtained with 0.165 mm sixe pixel display at 500 cd/m2.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that an increased maximum luminance level and a decreased pixel pitch of medical-grade display improve the accuracy of detecting both chest lesions and bone fractures.

Keywords

Digital radiography images ROC curve Radiographic image interpretation Liquid crystal display Medical grade display 

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in our study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study according to the Italian Directive n.9 2014 “General authorization to the processing of personal data carried out for scientific research purposes”.

References

  1. 1.
    Norwek JT, Seibert JA, Andriole KP et al (2013) ACR-AAPM-SIIM Technical standard for electronic practice of medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 26(1):10–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yin J, Guo Q, Sha X et al (2011) Influence of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) with different resolutions on the detection of pulmonary nodules: an observer performance study. Eur J Radiol 80:e153–e156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awan O, Safdar NM, Siddiqui KM et al (2011) Detection of cervical spine fracture on computed radiography images: a monitor resolution study. Acad Radiol 18:353–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T et al (2015) Detectability of T1a lung cancer on digital chest radiographs: an observer-performance comparison among 2-megapixel general-purpose, 2-megapixel medical-purpose, and 3-megapixel medical-purpose liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitors. Acta Radiol 56(8):943–949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Toomey RJ, Ryan JT, McEntee MF et al (2010) Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. AJR 194:469–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Partan G, Mayrhofer R, Urban M, Wassipaul M, Pichler L, Hruby W (2003) Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray monitors in brain computed tomography. Eur Radiol 13:2397–2401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG et al (2004) Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiol 232:762–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D et al (2005) Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32(4):1205–1225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    IEC 62563-1:2009 (2009) Medical electrical equipment—medical image display systems—part 1: evaluation methods. http://webstore.iec.ch/publication/7209. Accessed 10 Dec 2009
  10. 10.
    Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dendumrongsup T, Plumb AA, Halligan S, Fanshawe TR, Altman DG, Mallet S (2014) Multi-reader multi-case studies using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve as a measure of diagnostic accuracy: systematic review with a focus on quality of data reporting. PLoS One 9(12):e116018CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Obuchowski NA, Beiden SV, Berbaum KS et al (2004) Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis: an empirical comparison of five methods. Acad Radiol 11(9):980–995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wunderlich A, Abbey CK (2013) Utility as a rationale for choosing observer performance assessment paradigms for detection tasks in medical imaging. Med Phys 40(11):111903CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hillis SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26(3):596–619CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chakraborty DP, Zhai X (2016) Analysis of data acquired using ROC paradigm and its extensions. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RJafroc/vignettes/RJafroc.pdf. Accessed 19 Jul
  17. 17.
    Kimpe TRL, Xthona A (2012) Quantification of detection probability of microcalcifications at increased display luminance levels. In: Maidment ADA, Bakic PR, Gavenonis S (eds) Breast Imaging. IWDM 2012. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7361. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferranti C, Primolevo A, Cartia F et al (2017) How does the display luminance level affect detectability of breast microcalcifications and spiculated lesions in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images? Acad Radiol 24:795–801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Laffranchi
    • 1
  • Calogero Cicero
    • 2
  • Manuela Lualdi
    • 3
  • Chiara M. Ciniselli
    • 4
  • Giuseppina Calareso
    • 1
  • Stefano Canestrini
    • 2
  • Francesca G. Greco
    • 1
  • Enrico Alberioli
    • 2
  • Claudia Cavatorta
    • 3
  • Alessandro Guarise
    • 2
  • Emanuele Pignoli
    • 3
  • Maddalena Plebani
    • 4
  • Davide Scaramuzza
    • 1
  • Claudio Siciliano
    • 5
  • Paolo Verderio
    • 4
  • Alfonso Marchianò
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei TumoriMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyOspedale San BassianoBassano del Grappa (VI)Italy
  3. 3.Medical Physics UnitFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei TumoriMilanItaly
  4. 4.Medical Statistics, Biometry and Bioinformatics UnitFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei TumoriMilanItaly
  5. 5.Information and Communication Technology UnitFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei TumoriMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations