ROC study of four LCD displays under typical medical center lighting conditions

Technical and radiological image quality comparison of different liquid crystal displays for radiology

BACKGROUND

To inform cost-effective decisions in purchasing new medical liquid crystal displays, we compared the image quality in displays made by three manufacturers.

METHODS

We recruited 19 radiologists and residents to compare the image quality of four liquid crystal displays, including 3-megapixel Barco(®), Eizo(®), and NEC(®) displays and a 6-megapixel Barco display. The evaluators were blinded to the manufacturers' names. Technical assessments were based on acceptance criteria and test patterns proposed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Radiological assessments were performed on images from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18. They included X-ray images of the thorax, knee, and breast, a computed tomographic image of the thorax, and a magnetic resonance image of the brain. Image quality was scored on an analog scale (range 0-10). Statistical analysis was performed with repeated-measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The Barco 3-megapixel display passed all acceptance criteria. The Eizo and NEC displays passed the acceptance criteria, except for the darkest pixel value in the grayscale display function. The Barco 6-megapixel display failed criteria for the maximum luminance response and the veiling glare. Mean radiological assessment scores were 7.8±1.1 (Barco 3-megapixel), 7.8±1.2 (Eizo), 8.1±1.0 (NEC), and 8.1±1.0 (Barco 6-megapixel). No significant differences were found between displays.

CONCLUSION

According to the tested criteria, all the displays had comparable image quality; however, there was a three-fold difference in price between the most and least expensive displays.

[Diagnostic detection performance of a simulated nodule in chest computed tomography images and gray and color nuclear medicine images: comparison between a medical liquid crystal display monitor and an ordinary liquid crystal display monitor]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the detection performance of simulated nodules in chest computed tomography (CT) images and nuclear medicine images with an ordinary liquid crystal display (LCD) and a medical LCD (grayscale standard display function: GSDF) and gamma 2.2. We collected 72 chest CT image slices obtained from an LSCT phantom with simulated signals composed of various sizes and CT values and 78 slices of monochrome and color nuclear medicine images obtained from a digital phantom with a simulated signal composed of various sizes and radiation levels. Six observers performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis using a continuous scale. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated for each monitor. The average AUC values for detection of chest CT images on a medical LCD (GSDF), medical LCD (gamma 2.2), and ordinary LCD were 0.71, 0.67, and 0.73, respectively. The average AUC values for detection of monochrome nuclear medicine images using a medical LCD (GSDF), medical LCD (gamma 2.2), and ordinary LCD were 0.81, 0.75, and 0.72, respectively. The average AUC values for detection of color nuclear medicine images on a medical LCD (GSDF), medical LCD (gamma 2.2), and ordinary LCD were 0.88, 0.86, and 0.90, respectively. Observer performance for detection of simulated nodules in chest CT images and nuclear medicine images was not significantly different between the three LCD monitors. We therefore conclude that an ordinary LCD monitor can be used to detect simulated nodules in chest CT images and nuclear medicine images.

Evaluation of low-cost telemammography screening configurations: a comparison with film-screen readings in vulnerable areas

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy for detecting breast cancer using different telemammography configurations, including combinations of both low-cost capture devices and consumer-grade color displays. At the same time, we compared each of these configurations to film-screen readings. This study used a treatment-by-reader-by-case factorial design. The sample included 70 mammograms with 34 malignant cases. The readers consisted of four radiologists who classified all of the cases according to the categories defined by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). The evaluated capture devices included a specialized film digitizer and a digital camera, and the evaluated displays included liquid crystal display (LCD) and light-emitting diode (LED) consumer-grade color displays. Receiver operating characteristic curves, diagnostic accuracy (measured as the area under these curves), accuracy of the composition classification, sensitivity, specificity, and the degree of agreement between readers in the detection of malignant cases were also evaluated. Comparisons of diagnostic accuracy between film-screen and the different combinations of digital configurations showed no significant differences for nodules, calcifications, and asymmetries. In addition, no differences were observed in terms of sensibility or specificity when the degree of malignancy using the film-screen method was compared to that provided with digital configurations. Similar results were observed for the classification of breast composition. Furthermore, all observed reader agreements of malignant detection between film-screen and digital configurations were substantial. These findings indicate that the evaluated digital devices showed comparable diagnostic accuracy to the reference treatment (film-screen).

Diagnostic accuracy of digitized chest X-rays using consumer-grade color displays for low-cost teleradiology services: a multireader-multicase comparison

INTRODUCTION

In teleradiology services and in hospitals, the extensive use of visualization displays requires affordable devices. The purpose of this study was to compare three differently priced displays (a medical-grade grayscale display and two consumer-grade color displays) for image visualization of digitized chest X-rays.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The evaluated conditions were interstitial opacities, pneumothorax, and nodules using computed tomography as the gold standard. The comparison was accomplished in terms of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the diagnostic power measured as the area under ROC curves, accuracy in conditions classification, and main factors affecting accuracy, in a factorial study with 76 cases and six radiologists.

RESULTS

The ROC curves for all of the displays and pathologies had similar shapes and no differences in diagnostic power. The proportion of cases correctly classified for each display was greater than 71.9%. The correctness proportions of the three displays were different (p<0.05) only for interstitial opacities. The evaluation of the main factors affecting these proportions revealed that the display factor was not significant for either nodule size or pneumothorax size (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the image quality variables showed differences in the radiologists' perceptions of the image quality of the three displays, significant differences in the accuracy did not occur. The main effect on the variability of the proportions of correctly classified cases did not come from the display factor. This study confirms previous findings that medical-grade displays could be replaced by consumer-grade color displays with the same image quality.

TB or Not TB: interreader and intrareader variability in screening diagnosis on an iPad versus a traditional display

Mobile displays may have the ability to increase the flexibility of consulting radiologists if they can be shown not to negatively influence a reader's performance in clinical tasks. The authors report a comparison of a mobile display with a larger liquid crystal display for the task of making a binary decision for the diagnosis of tuberculosis on chest radiography. Deidentified DICOM images of 240 chest x-rays were transferred from a PACS to an iPad 2 running OsiriX HD software. The images were reviewed independently by 5 radiologists of varying experience and were graded as positive or negative for tuberculosis on both the liquid crystal display monitor and the iPad. The reading sessions were a minimum of 2 weeks apart to minimize recall bias. Agreement was measured in terms of κ statistics. Overall, multirater generalized κ was 0.9694. These results suggest that there is no detectable effect of monitor type (liquid crystal display or iPad 2) on the reader's decision for the task of tuberculosis diagnosis.

Digital radiography with computerized conventional monitors compared to medical monitors in vertical root fracture diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Vertical root fracture (VRF) is a complication which is chiefly diagnosed radiographically. Recently, film-based radiography has been substituted with digital radiography. At the moment, there is a wide range of monitors available in the market for viewing digital images. The present study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of medical and conventional monitors in detection of vertical root fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this in vitro study 228 extracted single-rooted human teeth were endodontically treated. Vertical root fractures were induced in 114 samples. The teeth were imaged by a digital charge-coupled device radiography using parallel technique. The images were evaluated by a radiologist and an endodontist on two medical and conventional liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitors twice. Z-test was used to analyze the sensitivity, accuracy and specificity of each monitor. Significance level was set at 0.05. Inter and intra observer agreements were calculated by Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Accuracy, specificity and sensitivity for conventional monitor were calculated as 67.5%, 72%, 62.5% respectively; and data for medical grade monitor were 67.5%, 66.5% and 68% respectively. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences in detecting VRF between the two techniques. Inter-observer agreement for conventional and medical monitor was 0.47 and 0.55 respectively (moderate). Intra-observer agreement was 0.78 for medical monitor and 0.87 for conventional one (substantial).

CONCLUSION

The type of monitor does not influence diagnosis of vertical root fractures.

Effect of greyscale liquid crystal displays of different resolutions on observer performance during detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of monochrome liquid crystal displays (LCDs) with different resolutions on observer performance during detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules.

METHODS

Chest images of digital radiography were selected online from the hospital's picture archiving and communication system. Of the 164 images selected, small solitary non-calcified pulmonary nodules were present in 63 images and absent in 101 images. Observer performance was assessed among 3 extremely experienced, 3 very experienced and 3 moderately experienced radiologists, who independently interpreted these images on 2, 3 and 5 megapixel greyscale LCDs. A five-point confidence level rating scale was used to represent the presence of nodules: definite absence, probable absence, indetermination, probable presence and definite presence. The observers were requested to rank each image on the given display according to the presence of the pulmonary nodule. Observer performance was analysed in terms of receiver operating characteristics (ROCs).

RESULTS

The areas under the ROC curves which represented the observer performance for the 2, 3 and 5 megapixel LCDs were found to be 0.705, 0.722 and 0.764, respectively, for the extremely experienced radiologists; 0.687, 0.712 and 0.721, respectively, for the very experienced radiologists; and 0.689, 0.696 and 0.711, respectively, for the moderately experienced radiologists. These differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The observer performances for detection of small solitary non-calcified pulmonary nodules by radiologists with varying degrees of experience were comparable between the 2, 3 and 5 megapixel monochrome LCDs.

Comparison of paper print and soft copy reading in plain paediatric radiographs

With the introduction of a Picture Archiving and Communication System, Computed (CR) and Digital Radiography (DR), reading digital images takes place from a computer screen. Laser paper print rather than laser film would be a significantly more cost-effective option for hard copy production, but would need to demonstrate acceptable diagnostic quality compared to the reference standard of screen reading. A comparative study of 51 digital paediatric CR radiographs presented in laser paper print and soft copy format to determine the diagnostic value of the paper print when compared to the reference standard of screen reading. Chest radiography had a poor sensitivity of 66.1% while musculoskeletal and abdominal radiography had acceptable sensitivities of 90% and 99%, respectively. Specificity was excellent for the different regions (98.6-99.5%). The paper print format should not be used for diagnostic purposes in paediatric chest radiography, but may still be used for demonstration when accompanied by the radiology rapport obtained from soft copy reading. Further studies would be needed to investigate the use of paper prints in abdominal and musculoskeletal radiography owing to the low number of abdominal radiographs and lack of musculoskeletal case variety in our study.

Introduction to grayscale calibration and related aspects of medical imaging grade liquid crystal displays

Consistent presentation of digital radiographic images at all locations within a medical center can help ensure a high level of patient care. Currently, liquid crystal displays (LCDs) are the electronic display technology of choice for viewing medical images. As the inherent luminance (and thereby perceived contrast) properties of different LCDs can vary substantially, calibration of the luminance response of these displays is required to ensure that observer perception of an image is consistent on all displays. The digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) grayscale standard display function (GSDF) defines the luminance response of a display such that an observer's perception of image contrast is consistent throughout the pixel value range of a displayed image. The main purpose of this work is to review the theoretical and practical aspects of calibration of LCDs to the GSDF. Included herein is a review of LCD technology, principles of calibration, and other practical aspects related to calibration and observer perception of images presented on LCDs. Both grayscale and color displays are considered, and the influence of ambient light on calibration and perception is discussed.

Medical grade vs off-the-shelf color displays: influence on observer performance and visual search

The goal of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of radiologists viewing clinical images on a top-of-the-line medical-grade vs a top-of-the-line commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) color display with the luminance values set to simulate a display that had been in use for 1 year. A set of 50 digital radiography chest images was selected for use in the study, half containing a solitary pulmonary nodule and half nodule-free. The images were displayed twice to each of six observers, once on each display. Eye position was recorded on a subset of the images. Overall, there was a statistically significant difference (F = 4.1496, p = 0.0471) between the medical-grade color display and the COTS color display in terms of receiver operating characteristic area under the curve values, with the medical-grade display yielding higher diagnostic accuracy. Total viewing time did not differ significantly, but eye position data revealed differences, suggesting better search and decision-making efficiency with the medical-grade display. Medical-grade color displays at 1 year old yield better diagnostic and search efficiency than COTS color displays and thus are recommended for primary reading if color displays are to be used.

A comparative contrast-detail study of five medical displays

The objective of this study was to compare the contrast-detail performance of five different commercial liquid crystal displays (LCDs) to other LCD and cathode-ray tube (CRT) displays for medical applications. A contrast-detail phantom, supplemented with 5 in. of acrylic, was imaged on a commercial digital radiographic system using techniques comparable to chest radiography. The phantom design enabled observer evaluation by a four-alternative forced choice paradigm. The acquired images were independently scored by five observers on five medical display devices: a 5 megapixel monochrome LCD, a 3 megapixel monochrome LCD, a 9 megapixel color LCD, a 5 megapixel monochrome CRT, and a mammographic-grade monochrome CRT. The data were analyzed using the method suggested by the manufacturer based on a nearest neighbor correction technique. They were further analyzed using a logistic regression response model with a natural threshold using an overall chi-square test for display type followed by pairwise comparisons for individual display performance. The differences between the display devices were small. The standard analysis of the results based on the manufacturer-recommended method did not yield any statistically discernible trend among displays. The logistic regression analysis, however, indicated that the 5 megapixel monochrome LCD was statistically significantly (p <0.0001) superior to the others, followed by the 3 megapixel monochrome LCD (p<0.0001). The three other displays exhibited lower but generally similar performance characteristics. The findings suggest that 5 and 3 megapixel monochrome LCDs provide comparable but subtly superior contrast detectability than other tested displays, with the former performing slightly better in the detection of subtle and fine details.

Monochrome versus color softcopy displays for teleradiology: observer performance and visual search efficiency

This study evaluated the potential clinical utility for teleradiology of a high-performance (3-mega-pixel) color softcopy display compared with two monochrome softcopy displays: one of comparable luminance (250 cd/m2) and one of higher luminance (450 cd/m2). Six radiologists viewed 50 chest images, half with nodules and half without, once on each display. Eye position was recorded on a subset of the images to characterize visual search efficiency. There was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic performance as a function of monitor (F=1.176, p=0.3127), although the higher luminance display yielded slightly better performance. In terms of total viewing time, there were no statistically significant differences between the three monitors (F=1.478, p=0.2298). The dwell times associated with true- and false-positive decisions were shortest for the high luminance monochrome display, longer for the low luminance monochrome, and longest for the low luminance color display. Dwells for the false-negative decisions were longest for the high luminance monochrome display, shorter for the low luminance monochrome, and shortest for the low luminance color display. The true negative dwells were not significantly different. The study suggests that high-performance color displays can be used for teleradiologic interpretation of diagnostic images without negatively impacting diagnostic accuracy or visual search efficiency to a significant degree.

Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology

In diagnostic radiology, medical-grade monochrome displays are usually recommended because of their higher luminance. Standard color displays can be used as a less expensive alternative, but have a lower luminance. The aim of the present study was to compare image quality for these two types of displays. Images of a CDRAD contrast-detail phantom were read by four radiologists using a 2-megapixel (MP) color display (143 cd/m(2) maximum luminance) as well as 2-MP (295 cd/m(2)) and 3-MP monochrome displays. Thirty lumbar spine radiographs were also read by four radiologists using the color and the 2-MP monochrome display in a visual grading analysis (VGA). Very small differences were found between the displays when reading the CDRAD images. The VGA scores were -0.28 for the color and -0.25 for the monochrome display (p = 0.24; NS). It thus seems possible to use color displays in diagnostic radiology provided that grayscale adjustment is used.