Which of the following station is used to review images by the technologist after acquisition but before sending them to the radiologist for reading?

1. Seshadri SB, Arenson RL, DeSimone D, Hiss S: Cost-savings associated with a digital radiology department: a preliminary study. Presented at the Ninth Conference on Computer Applications in Radiology, Hilton Head, SC, June 1988

2. Gee JC, DeSoto LA, Kim Y, Haynor DR, Loop JW. User interface design for a radiological imaging workstation. SPIE Med Imaging III. 1989;1093:122–132. [Google Scholar]

3. Braudes SE, Mun SK, Sibert J, Schnizlein J, Horii S. Workstation modelling and development: clinical definition of a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) user interface. SPIE Med Imaging III. 1989;1093:376–386. [Google Scholar]

4. Cox GG, McMillan JH, Wetzel LH, Siegel EL, Templeton AW, Dwyer III SJ. Direct diagnosis from a 2,000 × 2,000 × 12-bit displays: comparison with hard copy (abstr). Radiology. 1989;173(P):471. [Google Scholar]

5. MacMahon H, Metz C, Doi K, Kim T, Giger ML, Chan H. Digital chest radiography: effect on diagnostic accuracy of hard copy. Radiology. 1988;168:669–673. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Yamasaki K, Sato K, Kusumoto M, Adachi S, Kuno M. Comparative studies of physical characteristics and clinical efficacy of digitized chest image (abstr). Radiology. 1989;173(P):226. [Google Scholar]

7. Oestmann JW, Greene R, Rubens JR, et al. High-frequency edge enhancement in the detection of fine pulmonary lines. Invest Radiol. 1989;24:643–646. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Ishida M, Frank PH, Doi K, Lehr JL. High quality digital radiographic images: improved detection of low-contrast objects and preliminary clinical studies. RadioGraphics. 1983;3:325–338. [Google Scholar]

9. Sheline ME, Brikman I, Epstein D, Mezrich J, Kundel HL, Arenson RL. The diagnosis of pulmonary nodules; comparison between standard and inverse digitized images and conventional chest radiographs. AJR. 1989;152:261–263. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Cornsweet TH, Pensker HM. Luminance discrimination of brief flashes under various conditions of adaption. J Physiol (Lond) 1965;176:294–310. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Hendee WR. The physical principles of computed tomography. Boston: Little Brown; 1983. [Google Scholar]

12. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Thickman D, Carmody D, Toto L. Nodule detection with and without a chest image. Invest Radiol. 1985;20:94–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol. 1986;21:720–733. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Foley WD, Wilson CR, Keyes GS, et al. The effect of varying spatial resolution on the detectability of diffuse pulmonary nodules. Radiology. 1981;141:25–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Huebener K-H. Scanned projection radiography of the chest versus standard film radiography: a comparison of 250 cases. Radiology. 1983;148:363–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Seeley GW, Newell JD. The use of psychophysical principles in the design of a total digital radiology department. Radiol Clin North Am. 1985;23:341–348. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. MacMahon H, Vyborny CJ, Metz CE, Doi K, Sabeti V, Solomon S. Digital radiography of subtle pulmonary abnormalities: an ROC study of the effect of pixel size on observer performance. Radiology. 1986;158:21–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Lams PM, Cocklin ML. Spatial resolution requirements for digital chest radiographs: an ROC study of observer performance in selected cases. Radiology. 1986;158:11–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Goodman LR, Foley WD, Wilson DR, Rimm AA, Lawson TL. Digital and conventional chest images: observer performance with film digital radiography system. Radiology. 1986;158:27–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Chakraborty DP, Breatnach ES, Yester MV, Soto B, Barnes GT, Fraser R. Digital and conventional chest imaging: a modified ROC study of observer performance using simulated nodules. Radiology. 1986;158:35–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Niklason LT, Hickey NM, Chakraborty DP, et al. Simulated pulmonary nodules: detection with dual energy digital versus conventional radiography. Radiology. 1986;160:589–593. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Kushner DC, Cleveland RH, Herman TE, et al. Low-dose flying spot digital radiography of the chest: sensitivity studies. Radiology. 1987;163:685–688. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Barnes GT, Sabbagh EA, Chakraborty DP, et al. A comparison of dual-energy digital radiography and screen-film imaging in the detection of subtle interstitial pulmonary disease. Invest Radiol. 1989;24:585–591. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Chan H, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K, Sickles EA. Digital mammography ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol. 1987;22:581–589. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Oestmann JW, Kopans D, Hall DA, McCarthy KA, Rubens JR, Greene R. A comparison of digitized storage phosphors and conventional mammography in the detection of malignant microcalcifications. Invest Radiol. 1988;23:726–723. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Seeley GW, Stempski M, Roehrig H, Nudelman S, Capp MP. Psychophysical comparison of a video display system to film by using bone fracture images. Presented at the First International Symposium on Medical Imaging and Image Interpretation. Berlin: Federal Republic of Germany; October 1982. [Google Scholar]

27. Murphey MD. Digital skeletal radiography: spatial resolution requirements for detection of subperiosteal resorption. AJR. 1989;152:541–546. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Kastan DJ, Ackerman LV, Feczko PJ. Digital gastrointestinal imaging: the effect of pixel size on detection of subtle mucosal abnormalities. Radiology. 1987;167:853–856. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Fajardo LL, Hillman BJ, Hunter TB, Claypool HR, Westerman BR, Mockbee B. Excretory urography using computed radiography. Radiology. 1987;162:345–351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Rose A. Vision, human and electronic. New York: Plenum; 1973. [Google Scholar]

31. Kruger RA, Mistretta CA, Riederer SJ. Physical and technical considerations of computerized fluoroscopy difference imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1981;NS28:205–212. [Google Scholar]

32. Rimkus D, Baily NA. Patient exposure requirements for high contrast resolution in digital radiographic systems. AJR. 1984;142:603–608. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Tannas LE. Flat-panel displays and CRTs. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1985. [Google Scholar]

34. Suddarth SA, Johnson GA, Sherrier RH, Ravin CE. Performance of high-resolution monitors for digital chest imaging. Med Phys. 1987;14:253–257. doi: 10.1118/1.596079. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Johnston RE: Display monitors. Presented at the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Summer School in Image Communication and Image Analysis, Ann Arbor, Mien, July 12-17, 1987

36. O’Malley KG, Giunta JA. The alternator: determination of its fundamental features, as a basis for design of a PACS. SPIE Med Imaging II. 1988;914:988–994. [Google Scholar]

37. Kasaday LR. Human factor considerations in PACS design. SPIE Med XIV PACS IV. 1986;626:581–592. [Google Scholar]

38. Rogers DC, Johnston RE, Brenton B, Staab EV, Thomson B, Perry JR. Predicting PACS console requirements from radiologists’ reading habits. SPIE PACS III. 1985;536:88–96. [Google Scholar]

39. Beard D, Pizer S, Rogers D, Cromartie R. A prototype single-screen PACS console development using human computer interaction techniques. SPIE Med Imaging. 1987;767:646–653. [Google Scholar]

40. Johnston RE, Beard DV, Creasy JL, Perry JR: UNC PACS II: consoles. Presented at the Ninth Conference on Computer Applications in Radiology, Hilton Head, SC, June 1-4, 1988

41. Lo SB, Mun SK, Braudes RE, Levine BA. A workstation for rapid image presentation. SPIE Med Imaging. 1989;III:1093–1098. [Google Scholar]

42. American national standards for human factors engineering of visual display terminal workstations. Santa Monica, Calif: Human Factors Society; 1988. [Google Scholar]

43. van der Voorde F, Arenson RL, Kundel HL, et al. Development of a physician friendly digital image display console. PACS IV. 1986;626:541–548. [Google Scholar]

44. Alter AJ, Kargas GA, Kargas SA, et al. The influence of ambient and viewbox light upon visual detection of low-contrast targets in a radiograph. Invest Radiol. 1982;17:402–406. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Rogers DC, Johnston RE. Effect of ambient light on electronically displayed medical images as measured by luminance-discrimination thresholds. J Opt Soc Am [A] 1987;4:976–983. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Seshadri SB, Arenson RL, Khalsa SS, Brikman IS, van der Voorde F. Prototype image management system (MIMS) at the University of Pennsylvania: software design considerations. SPIE Med Imaging. 1987;767:793–800. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Haynor DR, Saarinen AO. “Old study” and the correlative study: implications for PACS. SPIE Med Imaging III. 1989;1093:10–12. [Google Scholar]

48. Cox GG, Templeton AW, Anderson WH, Cook LT, Hensley KS, Dwyer SJ. Estimating digital information throughput rates for radiology networks. Invest Radiol. 1986;21:162–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Arenson RL, Seshadri SB, Stevens F, van der Voorde F. Proceedings of computer assisted radiology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1987. The overlapping domains and interface between radiology information management systems and medical image management systems (PACS). pp. 855–865. [Google Scholar]

50. Arenson RL, Seshadri SB, Kundel HL, et al. Clinical evaluation of a medical image management system for chest images. AJR. 1988;150:55–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Gershon-Cohen J, Fisher JF. Television contrast expansion of single roentgenograms. AJR. 1959;81:325–327. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Meyers PH, Becker HC, Sweeney JW, Nice C, Nettleton WJ. Evaluation of a computer retrieved radiographic image. Radiology. 1963;201:83–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Nathan R. Picture enhancement for the moon, Mars, and man. In: Cheng GC, Ledley RS, Pollock DK, Rosenfeld A, editors. Pictorial pattern recognition. Washington, DC: Thomson; 1968. pp. 239–266. [Google Scholar]

54. Kundel HL, Revesz G, Stauffer HM. The electro-optical processing of radiographic images. Radiol Clin North Am. 1969;8:447–460. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Mistretta CA, Crummy AB. Diagnosis of cardiovascular disease by digital subtraction angiography. Science. 1981;214:761–765. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Ishida M, Frank PH, Doi K, Lehr JL. High quality digital radiographic images: improved detection of low-contrast objects and preliminary clinical studies. RadioGraphics. 1982;3:325–338. [Google Scholar]

57. Kundel HL. Visual perception and image display terminals. Radiol Clin North Am. 1986;24:69–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Schreiber WF. Fundamentals of electronic imaging systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1986. [Google Scholar]

59. Pizer SM, Chan FH. Evaluation of the number of discernible levels produced by a display. In: Dipaola R, Kahn E, editors. Information processing in medical imaging. Proceedings of the VIth International Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging. Vol 88. Paris: INSERM; 1980. [Google Scholar]

60. Cromartie RC, Johnston RE, Pizer SM, Rogers D. Standardization of electronic display devices based on human perception. University of North Carolina Department of Computer Science technical report 88-002. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina; 1987. [Google Scholar]

61. Pizer SM, Zimmerman JB, Staab EV. Adaptive grey level assignment in CT scan display. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1984;8:300–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. McShan DL, Glickman AS. Color displays for medical imaging in color and the computer. In: Durrett HJ, editor. Color and the computer. San Diego: Academic Press; 1987. pp. 189–204. [Google Scholar]

63. Chan FH, Pizer SM. An ultrasonogram display system using natural color. JCU. 1976;4:335–338. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. Vannier MW, Rickman D. Multispectral and color-aided displays. Invest Radiol. 1989;24:88–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. DeSimone DN, Kundel HL, Arenson RL, et al. Effect of a digital imaging network on physician behavior in an intensive care unit. Radiology. 1988;169:41–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Swett HA, Miller PL. ICON: computer-based approach to differential diagnosis in radiology. Radiology. 1987;163:555–558. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Fischer HW. Danger ahead (editorial). Radiology. 1988;169:267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Arenson RL. Opportunity ahead (editorial response). Radiology. 1988;169:267–268. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]


Page 2

Summary of Studies on Pixel Size Requirements for Chest Imaging

InvestigatorsDisplay Medium, MatrixPixel Sizes Tested (mm)Abnormalities InvestigatedEstimated Acceptable Pixel Resolution (mm)
Foley et al14Film0.2-1.6Nodules1.0
Huebener15*Video, 2561Various1.0
Seeley and Newell16Film0.2-1.6Various0.2
MacMahon et al17Film0.1-1Interstitial pulmonary disease<0.1
Lams and Cocklin18†Video, 1,0240.2-1.6Nodules and septal lines0.4
Goodman et al19‡TV, 1,0240.2 (zoom)Various<0.2
Chakraborty et al20§TV, 5120.5Nodules0.5
Niklason et al21‖Film0.45Nodules0.45
Kushner et al22#Video, 2561Various<1.3
Barnes et al23‖Film0.45Interstitial0.45