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


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 Slone, R.
Right arrow Articles by Pilgram, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Slone, R.
Right arrow Articles by Pilgram, T.

Radiology, Vol 199, 497-504, Copyright © 1996 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Effect of exposure variation on the clinical utility of chest radiographs

RM Slone, R Van Metter, E Senol, E Muka and TK Pilgram
Electronic Radiology Laboratory, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.

PURPOSE: To study the effects of exposure error on the clinical utility of chest radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Under- and overexposed screen-film images were simulated by adding exposure offsets to the normalized CR log(10) exposure data from a computed radiography (CR) system and printed by using the sensitometric response of a medium- latitude system. The clinical utility of the overall image, lung, and soft tissue in 48 images were independently graded by eight radiologists. RESULTS: Most variability in image scores was due to differences in exposure. About 95% of the lung regions and 75% of the soft-tissue regions were rated as having good or ideal clinical utility at the nominal exposure. About 80% of the overall images were rated as good or better for exposures within 40% [0.15 log(10) exposure] of the nominal. The overall image scores were heavily influenced by the lung region, and reader tolerance for exposure error was greater for soft tissue than for lung. The optimal exposure for soft tissue was about 60% [0.25 log(10) exposure] greater than for lung; therefore, no single exposure was optimal for the entire image. CONCLUSION: Conventional medium-latitude screen-film systems have intrinsic limitations for capturing and displaying the wide transmittance differences in the thorax. The clinical utility of chest radiographs may be improved by developing better image capture and display techniques.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
J. M. Goo, J.-G. Im, H. J. Lee, M. J. Chung, J. B. Seo, H. Y. Kim, Y.-J. Lee, J.-W. Kang, and J. H. Kim
Detection of Simulated Chest Lesions by Using Soft-Copy Reading: Comparison of an Amorphous Silicon Flat-Panel-Detector System and a Storage-Phosphor System
Radiology, July 1, 2002; 224(1): 242 - 246.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. Garmer, S. P. Hennigs, H. J. Jager, F. Schrick, T. van de Loo, A. Jacobs, A. Hanusch, A. Christmann, and K. Mathias
Digital Radiography Versus Conventional Radiography in Chest Imaging: Diagnostic Performance of a Large-Area Silicon Flat-Panel Detector in a Clinical CT-Controlled Study
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2000; 174(1): 75 - 80.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1996 by the Radiological Society of North America.