HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kalyanpur, A. Articles by Brink, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kalyanpur, A. Articles by Brink, J. A.

Evaluation of JPEG and Wavelet Compression of Body CT Images for Direct Digital Teleradiologic Transmission¹

¹ From the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 2-332 SP, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT 06520. Received October 27, 1999; revision requested December 7; revision received April 6, 2000; accepted April 20. Address correspondence to J.A.B. (e-mail: James.Brink@yale.edu).

PURPOSE: To determine acceptable levels of JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) and wavelet compression for teleradiologic transmission of body computed tomographic (CT) images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A digital test pattern (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, 512 x 512 matrix) was transmitted after JPEG or wavelet compression by using point-to-point and Web-based teleradiology, respectively. Lossless, 10:1 lossy, and 20:1 lossy ratios were tested. Images were evaluated for high- and low-contrast resolution, sensitivity to small signal differences, and misregistration artifacts. Three independent observers who were blinded to the compression scheme evaluated these image quality measures in 20 clinical cases with similar levels of compression.

RESULTS: High-contrast resolution was not diminished with any tested level of JPEG or wavelet compression. With JPEG compression, low-contrast resolution was not lost with 10:1 lossy compression but was lost at 3% modulation with 20:1 lossy compression. With wavelet compression, there was loss of 1% modulation with 10:1 lossy compression and loss of 5% modulation with 20:1 lossy compression. Sensitivity to small signal differences (5% and 95% of the maximal signal) diminished only with 20:1 lossy wavelet compression. With 10:1 lossy compression, misregistration artifacts were mild and were equivalent with JPEG and wavelet compression. Qualitative clinical findings supported these findings.

CONCLUSION: Lossy 10:1 compression is suitable for on-call electronic transmission of body CT images as long as original images are subsequently reviewed.

Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), image processing, _**.12112² • Computed tomography (CT), image quality, _**.1211 • Data compression • Images, storage and retrieval • Images, transmission • Phantoms • Teleradiology

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. Bajpai, K. H. Lee, B. Kim, K. J. Kim, T. J. Kim, Y. H. Kim, and H. S. Kang Differences in Compression Artifacts on Thin- and Thick-Section Lung CT Images Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): W38 - W43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Ringl, R. Schernthaner, E. Sala, K. El-Rabadi, M. Weber, W. Schima, C. J. Herold, and A. K. Dixon Lossy 3D JPEG2000 Compression of Abdominal CT Images in Patients with Acute Abdominal Complaints: Effect of Compression Ratio on Diagnostic Confidence and Accuracy Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 476 - 484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Kim, K. H. Lee, K. J. Kim, R. Mantiuk, H.-r. Kim, and Y. H. Kim Artifacts in Slab Average-Intensity-Projection Images Reformatted from JPEG 2000 Compressed Thin-Section Abdominal CT Data Sets Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6): W342 - W350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Ringl, R. E. Schernthaner, C. Kulinna-Cosentini, M. Weber, C. Schaefer-Prokop, C. J. Herold, and W. Schima Lossy Three-dimensional JPEG2000 Compression of Abdominal CT Images: Assessment of the Visually Lossless Threshold and Effect of Compression Ratio on Image Quality Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 467 - 474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, S. M. Waldrop, and C. J. D'Orsi Detection of Simulated Lesions on Data-compressed Digital Mammograms Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 31 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kalyanpur, V. P. Neklesa, D. T. Pham, H. P. Forman, S. T. Stein, and J. A. Brink Implementation of an International Teleradiology Staffing Model Radiology, August 1, 2004; 232(2): 415 - 419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Ko, H. Rusinek, D. P. Naidich, G. McGuinness, A. N. Rubinowitz, B. S. Leitman, and J. M. Martino Wavelet Compression of Low-Dose Chest CT Data: Effect on Lung Nodule Detection Radiology, July 1, 2003; 228(1): 70 - 75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]