↓ Skip to main content

Image Quality Assurance of Soft Copy Display Systems

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, July 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Image Quality Assurance of Soft Copy Display Systems
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, July 2005
DOI 10.1007/s10278-005-6705-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Seto, Ali Ursani, Joseph A. Cafazzo, Peter G. Rossos, Anthony C. Easty

Abstract

Image quality assurance has traditionally been a high priority in medical imaging departments. Recently, it has often been neglected with the transition from hard copy (film) to soft copy (computer) display systems, which could potentially result in difficulty in reading images or even misdiagnosis. This transition therefore requires careful management such that comparable image quality is achieved at a minimum. It is particularly difficult to maintain appropriate image quality in the clinical settings outside of medical imaging departments because of the volume of display systems and the financial restraints that prohibit the widespread use of dedicated computers and high-quality monitors. In this study, a protocol to test and calibrate display systems was developed and validated by using an inexpensive calibration tool. Using this protocol, monitors were identified in a hospital in which image quality was found to be inadequate for medical image viewing. It was also found that most monitors could achieve a substantial increase in image quality after calibration. For example, the 0 and 5% luminance difference was discernable on 30% of the piloted display systems before calibration, but it was discernable on 100% post calibration. In addition, about 50% of the piloted display systems did not have the maximum luminance (white level) suitably set, and 35% of them did not have the minimum luminance (dark level) suitably set. The results indicate that medical display systems must be carefully selected and strictly monitored, maintained, and calibrated to ensure adequate image quality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 3%
Denmark 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 26 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Other 7 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 27%
Physics and Astronomy 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Computer Science 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2014.
All research outputs
#15,295,786
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#726
of 1,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,279
of 56,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,048 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 56,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.