Comparison of 2048-line digital display formats and conventional radiographs: an ROC study

Department of Radiological Sciences, UCLA Medical Center 90024-1721.

Observer performance tests were conducted to compare the effects on diagnostic accuracy of digital hard copy and video display formats versus conventional radiographic film. Digital images were obtained by digitizing conventional chest radiographs to a 2048 x 2048 matrix with a laser film scanner. Three digital display formats were used: laser-printed digital film, a 2048-line video monitor without user interaction, and a 2048-line video monitor with user interaction. Thirty-one posteroanterior chest radiographs, determined by consensus of four thoracic radiologists to contain septal lines (n = 11), parenchymal nodules (n = 7), nodules and septal lines (n = 7), or neither abnormality (n = 6), were used for the study. Images were interpreted by four radiologists in four separate viewing sessions. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by receiver-operating characteristic analysis for each observer with each viewing technique. No statistical differences in diagnostic accuracy, determined by the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve, were found between the analog film, the digital film, and the two video digital display formats. This preliminary study suggests that 2048-line digital displays may be an acceptable alternative to the traditional lightbox viewing method for the perception of these two abnormalities commonly seen on chest radiographs.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. S. Kim, J.-G. Im, J. M. Goo, K. H. Lee, Y.-J. Lee, S. H. Kim, and S. Kim Detection of Pulmonary Edema in Pigs: Storage Phosphor versus Amorphous Selenium-based Flat-Panel-Detector Radiography Radiology, June 1, 2002; 223(3): 695 - 701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Eng, W. K. Mysko, G. E. R. Weller, R. Renard, J. N. Gitlin, D. A. Bluemke, D. Magid, G. D. Kelen, and W. W. Scott Jr. Interpretation of Emergency Department Radiographs: A Comparison of Emergency Medicine Physicians with Radiologists, Residents with Faculty, and Film with Digital Display Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2000; 175(5): 1233 - 1238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Goo, J.-G. Im, J. H. Kim, J. B. Seo, T. S. Kim, S. J. Shine, and W. Lee Digital Chest Radiography with a Selenium-Based Flat-Panel Detector Versus a Storage Phosphor System: Comparison of Soft-Copy Images Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2000; 175(4): 1013 - 1018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Graf, U. Simon, F. Eickmeyer, and V. Fiedler IK Versus 2K Monitor: A Clinical Alternative Free-Response Receiver Operating Characteristic Study of Observer Performance Using Pulmonary Nodules Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2000; 174(4): 1067 - 1074. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Halvorsen and I. S. Kristiansen Radiology services for remote communities: cost minimisation study of telemedicine BMJ, May 25, 1996; 312(7042): 1333 - 1336. [Abstract] [Full Text]