Digitizing pediatric chest radiographs : comparison of low-cost, commercial off-the-shelf technologies

Digitizing pediatric chest radiographs : comparison of low-cost, commercial off-the-shelf technologies

To compare low-cost, off-the-shelf technology for digitizing pediatric chest radiographs. Forty pediatric chest radiographs (hard copy), each with a single abnormality, were digitized using a commercial film digitizer and two low-cost a digital camera and a flatbed scanner. A stratified, randomized,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pediatric radiology Vol. 31; no. 12; pp. 841 - 847
Main Authors: RUESS, Lynne, UYEHARA, Catherine F. T, SHIELS, Kerry C, CHO, Kenneth H, O'CONNOR, Stephen C, WHITTON, Robert K, PERSON, Donald A
Format: Conference Proceeding Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Berlin Springer 01-12-2001
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects:
Adolescent
Biological and medical sciences
Child
Child, Preschool
Computer Communication Networks
Humans
Infant
Infant, Newborn
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous. Technology
Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry
Radiographic Image Enhancement - economics
Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods
Radiology Information Systems - economics
Teleradiology - economics
Teleradiology - instrumentation
Human
Pediatrics
Radiodiagnosis
Technology
Health economy
Medical imagery
Thorax
Technique
Cost analysis
Digital radiography
Child
Comparative study
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To compare low-cost, off-the-shelf technology for digitizing pediatric chest radiographs. Forty pediatric chest radiographs (hard copy), each with a single abnormality, were digitized using a commercial film digitizer and two low-cost a digital camera and a flatbed scanner. A stratified, randomized, block design was used where 20 readers evaluated 40 different images to determine the ability to accurately detect the abnormality. Readers then rated all 160 images (40 images x 4 methods) for conspicuity of the abnormality and overall image quality. Abnormalities were correctly identified on 82.3 % of hard copy images, 82.9 % of flatbed scanner images, 74.3 % of film digitizer images, and 69.7 % of digital camera images (p < 0.05) when compared to hard copy or flatbed scanner images. Lesion conspicuity was rated higher on hard copy (p < 0.05) than all digitized images. Conspicuity ratings were similar for flatbed scanner and film digitizer images, but lower in digital camera images (p < 0.05). For overall image quality, all were rated significantly different from each other (p < 0.05), with hard copy > flatbed scanner > film digitizer > digital camera images. A low-cost flatbed scanner yielded digital pediatric chest images which were significantly superior to digital camera images While flatbed scanner images were interpreted with the equivalent diagnostic accuracy of hard copy images, they were rated lower for image quality and lesion conspicuity.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-News-3
content type line 23
ISSN:0301-0449
1432-1998
DOI:10.1007/s002470100002