AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Murphey, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Murphey, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 152, Issue 3, 541-546
Copyright © 1989 by American Roentgen Ray Society

Articles

Digital skeletal radiography: spatial resolution requirements for detection of subperiosteal resorption

MD Murphey

Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City 66103.

Forty direct-magnification (2:1 enlargement) radiographs showing various severities of subperiosteal resorption and 40 normal studies were selected and digitized. Images were processed to produce varying resolution, from 1.42 to 11.4 Ip/mm, corresponding to pixel sizes ranging from 0.04 to 0.32 mm. The conventional and digitized images were evaluated by six radiologists giving their decision confidence on a graded scale. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed from these data to compare the digital images with the conventional films. The results show significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy as pixel size decreases to the level of 0.08 mm. Digital images with pixel sizes of 0.04 mm (11.4 Ip/mm) were not significantly different from the magnification radiographs in terms of observer performance. In conclusion, for high-resolution skeletal imaging as needed for detection of subperiosteal resorption, spatial resolution of 5.7 Ip/mm or less resulted in a significant loss of diagnostic accuracy, as compared with conventional films.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
P. L. Kleinman, D. Zurakowski, K. J. Strauss, R. H. Cleveland, J. M. Perez-Rosello, D. P. Nichols, K. H. Zou, and P. K. Kleinman
Detection of Simulated Inflicted Metaphyseal Fractures in a Fetal Pig Model: Image Optimization and Dose Reduction with Computed Radiography
Radiology, May 1, 2008; 247(2): 381 - 390.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. Zahringer, V. Hesselmann, O. Schulte, K. F. Kamm, W. Braun, G. Haupt, B. Krug, and K. Lackner
Reducing the Radiation Dose During Excretory Urography: Flat-Panel Silicon X-Ray Detector Versus Computed Radiography
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2003; 181(4): 931 - 937.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. Zahringer, B. Krug, K.-F. Kamm, G. Wassmer, M. Hellmich, G. Winnekendonk, J. Andermahr, A. Go{beta}mann, and K. J. Lackner
Detection of Porcine Bone Lesions and Fissures: Comparing Digital Selenium, Digital Luminescence, and Analog Film-Screen Radiography
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2001; 177(6): 1397 - 1403.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.