The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers
Open accessAbstract
Evaluation of image quality (IQ) in Computed Tomography (CT) is important to ensure that diagnostic questions are correctly answered, whilst keeping radiation dose to the patient as low as is reasonably possible. The assessment of individual aspects of IQ is already a key component of routine quality control of medical x-ray devices. These values together with standard dose indicators can be used to give rise to 'figures of merit' (FOM) to characterise the dose efficiency of the CT scanners operating in certain modes. The demand for clinically relevant IQ characterisation has naturally increased with the development of CT technology (detectors efficiency, image reconstruction and processing), resulting in the adaptation and evolution of assessment methods. The purpose of this review is to present the spectrum of various methods that have been used to characterise image quality in CT: from objective measurements of physical parameters to clinically task-based approaches (i.e. model observer (MO) approach) including pure human observer approach. When combined together with a dose indicator, a generalised dose efficiency index can be explored in a framework of system and patient dose optimisation. We will focus on the IQ methodologies that are required for dealing with standard reconstruction, but also for iterative reconstruction algorithms. With this concept the previously used FOM will be presented with a proposal to update them in order to make them relevant and up to date with technological progress. The MO that objectively assesses IQ for clinically relevant tasks represents the most promising method in terms of radiologist sensitivity performance and therefore of most relevance in the clinical environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Likert scales, levels of measurement, and the “laws” of statistics
Norman, G. (2010) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y · Cited by 4,850
Agreement Between Methods of Measurement with Multiple Observations Per Individual
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2007) · Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10543400701329422 · Cited by 1,864 · cited 1×
“A Bland–Altman plot is often used to compare results between model observers and human observers [113].”
Method
Cited by
Greffier, J., Hamard, A., Pereira, F., Barrau, C., Pasquier, H., Beregi, J. P., & Frandon, J. (2020) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-020-06724-w · Cited by 328
Optimisation of Radiological Protection in Digital Radiology Techniques for Medical Imaging
154, I. P. (2023) · Annals of the ICRP · doi:10.1177/01466453231210646 · Cited by 37
Simplified size adjusted dose reference levels for adult CT examinations: A regional study
Moghadam, N., Lecomte, R., Mercure, S., Rehani, M. M., & Nassiri, M. A. (2021) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109861 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Verdun, F. R., Racine, D., Ott, J. G., Tapiovaara, M. J., Toroi, P., Bochud, F. O., Veldkamp, W. J. H., Schegerer, A., Bouwman, R. W., Giron, I. H., Marshall, N. W., & Edyvean, S.
- Venue
- Physica Medica
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 823-843
- ISSN
- 1120-1797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2195096812
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.007
- The paper
- Verdun, F. R., Racine, D., Ott, J. G., Tapiovaara, M. J., Toroi, P., Bochud, F. O., Veldkamp, W. J. H., Schegerer, A., Bouwman, R. W., Giron, I. H., Marshall, N. W., & Edyvean, S. (2015). Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers. Physica Medica. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.