AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Compression Artifacts
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Kim, B.
Right arrow Articles by Kim, Y. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kim, B.
Right arrow Articles by Kim, Y. H.
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?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

Prediction of Perceptible Artifacts in JPEG 2000–Compressed Chest CT Images Using Mathematical and Perceptual Quality Metrics

Bohyoung Kim1,2, Kyoung Ho Lee1,2, Kil Joong Kim1,2, Rafal Mantiuk3, Seokyung Hahn4, Tae Jung Kim1,2 and Young Hoon Kim1,2

1 Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul 463-707, Korea.
2 Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea.
3 Max-Planck-Institut für Informatik, Saarbrücken, Germany.
4 Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.


Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1 —Individual readers' responses at each compression level. Each bar indicates percentage of positive responses—that is, percentage of compressed images being rated as distinguishable from their originals. Error bars indicate 95% CIs. White bar and bars that are different shades of gray represent different readers.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2A —Correlation between metric results and number of readers with positive responses using different compressions: 5:1 ({square}), 8:1 (sh=cir), 10:1 ({triangleup}), and 15:1 (+) compressions. Solid and dashed lines represent cutoff values balancing sensitivity and specificity and yielding 100% sensitivity, respectively, in receiver operating characteristic analyses. Graphs show results for two metrics: peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) (A) and HDR-VDP (B).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2B —Correlation between metric results and number of readers with positive responses using different compressions: 5:1 ({square}), 8:1 (sh=cir), 10:1 ({triangleup}), and 15:1 (+) compressions. Solid and dashed lines represent cutoff values balancing sensitivity and specificity and yielding 100% sensitivity, respectively, in receiver operating characteristic analyses. Graphs show results for two metrics: peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) (A) and HDR-VDP (B).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (133K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3 —Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) 2000 compression artifacts in contrast-enhanced transverse chest CT image in 53-year-old woman with usual interstitial pneumonia. According to pooled readers' responses, 5:1 (second row, column 1) and 8:1 (second row, column 2) compressed images were indistinguishable from original images (top row), whereas 10:1 (second row, column 3) and 15:1 (second row, column 4) compressed images were distinguishable from original images. Compression artifacts are best seen if original and compressed images (Figs. S1A–S1E) are downloaded and displayed alternately on same monitor; these images can be seen in the AJR electronic supplement to this article, available at www.ajronline.org. Subtraction images (third row) and high–dynamic range visual difference predictor (HDR-VDP) maps (bottom row) represent mathematical and predicted perceptual differences, respectively, between original and compressed images at each compression level. Region of interest for original and compressed images is smaller than that of subtraction images and HDR-VDP maps. For original and compressed images, window width and level settings are 1,500 and –600 H, respectively.

 

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?



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.