An automated film masking and illuminating system versus conventional radiographic viewing equipment: a comparison of observer performance.

P. D. Maldjian, J. A. Miller, J. A. Maldjian, S. R. Baker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We compared observer performance in the interpretation of radiographs using an automated film masking and illuminating system (AFIS) with performance using standard radiographic viewing equipment. METHODS: Observer performance was compared in three ways. In the first method, a radiographic pattern of vertical bars of varying conspicuity was shown to 11 subjects with use of the two different viewing systems. Subjects were not allowed to use a brightlight or handle the film. We then performed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study to compare observer accuracy in detection of low-contrast targets. ROC methodology was also used in the third portion of our study to compare the accuracy of interpretation of cervical spine radiographs by six radiologists. In both the second and third portions of our study, film handling and use of a bright-light was permitted to simulate clinical circumstances. RESULTS: As a group, observers performed significantly better using the AFIS in the first (P < .001) and second (P < .05) portions of our study. There was no significant difference in performance in interpretation of cervical spine radiographs between the two viewing systems. CONCLUSION: The AFIS enhanced low-contrast perception, but further research is needed to determine its ideal clinical applications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)827-833
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume3
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1996

Fingerprint

ROC Curve
Spine
Equipment and Supplies
Light
Research
Handling (Psychology)
Radiologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

An automated film masking and illuminating system versus conventional radiographic viewing equipment : a comparison of observer performance. / Maldjian, P. D.; Miller, J. A.; Maldjian, J. A.; Baker, S. R.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 3, No. 10, 01.01.1996, p. 827-833.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{179fafbd460d424b88fdb50416336c73,
title = "An automated film masking and illuminating system versus conventional radiographic viewing equipment: a comparison of observer performance.",
abstract = "RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We compared observer performance in the interpretation of radiographs using an automated film masking and illuminating system (AFIS) with performance using standard radiographic viewing equipment. METHODS: Observer performance was compared in three ways. In the first method, a radiographic pattern of vertical bars of varying conspicuity was shown to 11 subjects with use of the two different viewing systems. Subjects were not allowed to use a brightlight or handle the film. We then performed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study to compare observer accuracy in detection of low-contrast targets. ROC methodology was also used in the third portion of our study to compare the accuracy of interpretation of cervical spine radiographs by six radiologists. In both the second and third portions of our study, film handling and use of a bright-light was permitted to simulate clinical circumstances. RESULTS: As a group, observers performed significantly better using the AFIS in the first (P < .001) and second (P < .05) portions of our study. There was no significant difference in performance in interpretation of cervical spine radiographs between the two viewing systems. CONCLUSION: The AFIS enhanced low-contrast perception, but further research is needed to determine its ideal clinical applications.",
author = "Maldjian, {P. D.} and Miller, {J. A.} and Maldjian, {J. A.} and Baker, {S. R.}",
year = "1996",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80272-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "827--833",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An automated film masking and illuminating system versus conventional radiographic viewing equipment

T2 - a comparison of observer performance.

AU - Maldjian, P. D.

AU - Miller, J. A.

AU - Maldjian, J. A.

AU - Baker, S. R.

PY - 1996/1/1

Y1 - 1996/1/1

N2 - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We compared observer performance in the interpretation of radiographs using an automated film masking and illuminating system (AFIS) with performance using standard radiographic viewing equipment. METHODS: Observer performance was compared in three ways. In the first method, a radiographic pattern of vertical bars of varying conspicuity was shown to 11 subjects with use of the two different viewing systems. Subjects were not allowed to use a brightlight or handle the film. We then performed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study to compare observer accuracy in detection of low-contrast targets. ROC methodology was also used in the third portion of our study to compare the accuracy of interpretation of cervical spine radiographs by six radiologists. In both the second and third portions of our study, film handling and use of a bright-light was permitted to simulate clinical circumstances. RESULTS: As a group, observers performed significantly better using the AFIS in the first (P < .001) and second (P < .05) portions of our study. There was no significant difference in performance in interpretation of cervical spine radiographs between the two viewing systems. CONCLUSION: The AFIS enhanced low-contrast perception, but further research is needed to determine its ideal clinical applications.

AB - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We compared observer performance in the interpretation of radiographs using an automated film masking and illuminating system (AFIS) with performance using standard radiographic viewing equipment. METHODS: Observer performance was compared in three ways. In the first method, a radiographic pattern of vertical bars of varying conspicuity was shown to 11 subjects with use of the two different viewing systems. Subjects were not allowed to use a brightlight or handle the film. We then performed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study to compare observer accuracy in detection of low-contrast targets. ROC methodology was also used in the third portion of our study to compare the accuracy of interpretation of cervical spine radiographs by six radiologists. In both the second and third portions of our study, film handling and use of a bright-light was permitted to simulate clinical circumstances. RESULTS: As a group, observers performed significantly better using the AFIS in the first (P < .001) and second (P < .05) portions of our study. There was no significant difference in performance in interpretation of cervical spine radiographs between the two viewing systems. CONCLUSION: The AFIS enhanced low-contrast perception, but further research is needed to determine its ideal clinical applications.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030254005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030254005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80272-8

DO - 10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80272-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 8923901

AN - SCOPUS:0030254005

VL - 3

SP - 827

EP - 833

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 10

ER -