Abstract
Radiologists are regularly faced with the task of comparing image quality obtained using different imaging systems or settings. Visual grading techniques can be used to evaluate the quality of images by grading the clarity of reproduction of anatomical or pathological structures. The methods, which include “visual grading analysis (VGA)” and the “image criteria (IC) study”, are characterised by their attractive simplicity and reliability. Non-parametric rank-invariant statistical methods are suitable techniques for statistical analysis of VGA-data. Båth and Månsson (2007) introduced such a method and termed it “visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis”. This paper gives an overview of the principle together with an example of its use in veterinary radiology. The aim of this review article is to encourage veterinary researchers to apply this method which has proven valuable in the human field. Basically, the method can also be applied for the analysis of other categories of images (e.g. histological sections, cytological smears) in cases where the task is to evaluate features subjectively on the basis of a score, allowing some degree of freedom of decision. Furthermore, the aim of the investigation is not necessarily restricted to quality aspects. Other questions such as the effects of treatment options on the appearance of certain structures can be compared as well.
Notes
e.g. by calculating the detective quantum efficiency (DQE), the modulation transfer function (MTF), or the signal-to-noise ratio
e.g. contrast-detail diagrams
ROCKFIT, Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research, University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
SigmaStat, Systat Software Inc., 1735, Technology Drive, Ste 430, San Jose, CA 95110, USA
SPSS 14.0, SPSS Inc. Headquarters, 233 S. Wacker Drive, 11th floor, Chicago, IL 60606, USA
References
Båth, M., Månsson, L.G., 2007. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality analysis. The British Journal of Radiology 80, 169–176.
CEC (Commission of the European Community), 1996. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Report EUR 16260 EN. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities. http://www.sprmn.pt/legislacao/ficheiros/EuropeanGuidelineseur16260.pdf.
CEC (Commission of the European Community), 1996. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images in paediatrics. Report EUR 16261 EN. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities. http://www.sprmn.pt/legislacao/ficheiros/EuropeanGuidelinesEur16261.pdf.
CEC (Commission of the European Community), 1998. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Report EUR 16262 EN. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities. http://w3.tue.nl/fileadmin/sbd/Documenten/Leergang/BSM/European_Guidelines_Quality_Criteria_Computed_Tomography_Eur_16252.pdf. Published May 1998.
Geijer, H., Verdonck, B., Beckman, K.W., Andersson, T., Persliden, J., 2001. Digital radiography of scoliosis with a scanning method: initial evaluation. Radiology 218, 402–410.
Månsson, L.G., 2000. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: A review. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 90, 89–99.
Metz, C.E., 1986. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Investigative Radiology 21, 720–733.
Sonn, U., Svensson, E., 1997. Measures of individual and group changes in ordered categorical data: application to the ADL staircase. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 29, 233–242.
van Erkel, A.R., Pattynama, P.M., 1998. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis: basic principles and applications in radiology. European Journal of Radiology 27, 88–94
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ludewig, E., Richter, A. & Frame, M. Diagnostic imaging – evaluating image quality using visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis. Vet Res Commun 34, 473–479 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-010-9413-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-010-9413-2