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


     

DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2283020846
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
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 Vos, F. M.
Right arrow Articles by Stoker, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vos, F. M.
Right arrow Articles by Stoker, J.

Three-dimensional Display Modes for CT Colonography: Conventional 3D Virtual Colonoscopy versus Unfolded Cube Projection1

Frans M. Vos, PhD, Rogier E. van Gelder, MD, Iwo W. O. Serlie, MSc, Jasper Florie, MD, C. Yung Nio, MD, Afina S. Glas, MD, Frits H. Post, MSc, Roel Truyen, MSc, Frans A. Gerritsen, PhD and Jaap Stoker, MD, PhD

1 From the Department of Radiology (F.M.V., R.E.v.G., J.F., C.Y.N., J.S.) and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (A.S.G.), Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Pattern Recognition Group, Department of Applied Physics (F.M.V., I.W.O.S.) and Computer Graphics Group, Department of Mediamatics (F.H.P.), Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands; and Advanced Development, Medical Information Technology, Philips Medical Systems, Best, the Netherlands (R.T., F.A.G.). From the 2001 RSNA scientific assembly. Received July 12, 2002; revision requested August 29; revision received October 2; accepted December 19. Supported by Philips Medical Systems and ZON-MW grant 2100.0059 from the Dutch Research Council. Address correspondence to F.M.V. (e-mail: f.m.vos@amc.uva.nl).



View larger version (23K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Schematic shows areas in black that are missed in conventional 3D view.

 


View larger version (66K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Unfolded cube display shows cubic rendering.

 


View larger version (117K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Graphical user interface shows the sequence of unfolded cubes.

 


View larger version (170K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4a. Typical example of polyp (arrow) in (a) conventional 3D display and (b) unfolded cube display.

 


View larger version (90K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4b. Typical example of polyp (arrow) in (a) conventional 3D display and (b) unfolded cube display.

 


View larger version (67K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 5. Left: Conventional 3D display. Right: Unfolded cube display. Areas in black were missed.

 


View larger version (39K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 6. Line graph shows relationship between surface visibility and sampling rate along the central path for one data set. Surface area coming into view asymptotically approximates 99.8% for unfolded cube display (6P). 1P = forward or reverse viewing, 2P = conventional 3D display.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2003 by the Radiological Society of North America.