Changes in images introduced by compression algorithms at levels as low as 8:1 can be observed by readers when they are compared with uncompressed images, according to a research report presented at the SIIM conference. Researchers were unable to say what impact compression has on diagnosis, however, as the study did not address this question.
Changes in images introduced by compression algorithms at levels as low as 8:1 can be observed by readers when they are compared with uncompressed images, according to a research report presented at the SIIM conference. Researchers were unable to say what impact compression has on diagnosis, however, as the study did not address this question.
The study included nearly 15,000 images at three institutions. Readers were asked to flip between compressed and uncompressed images and to say whether they noticed any difference in the two groups. The readers found differences between 8:1 compressed and uncompressed images 78% of the time. The figures for 12:1 compression were 95% and for 16:1 compression, 99%.
The researchers concluded that even mild compression changes images in ways that are perceptible. But the perceived differences cannot yet be linked to diagnostic performance.
The study used a "flicker" method to compare compressed and uncompressed images. Readers can scroll between images shown in rapid succession, which creates a sense of motion when the two are different, said Elizabeth Krupinski, Ph.D., one of the principal researchers. That perception of motion may cue readers to the differences.
The test looked at thin-slice (0.625 to 1 mm) images from CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Interestingly, radiologists saw no difference between compressed and uncompressed images 38% of the time, said Krupinski, a professor of radiology at the University of Arizona.
That figure for Ph.D. readers was 28% and for residents, 29%.
"The trend is for radiologists to be more tolerant of differences or less sensitive," Krupinksi said.
Other researchers in the study were Dr. Bradley Erickson of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, and Katherine Andriole, Ph.D., of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School.
Shaping the Future of Radiology in 2025: Trends, Threats, and Opportunities
January 10th 2025How do we respond to challenges with staff recruitment, cybersecurity, and looming hospital takeovers in radiology? This author assesses key trends in radiology and offers key insights to stay competitive in the field.
Can MRI Have an Impact with Fertility-Sparing Treatments for Endometrial and Cervical Cancers?
January 9th 2025In a literature review that includes insights from recently issued guidelines from multiple European medical societies, researchers discuss the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in facilitating appropriate patient selection for fertility-sparing treatments to address early-stage endometrial and cervical cancer.
Surveillance Breast MRI Associated with Lower Risks of Advanced Second Breast Cancers
January 8th 2025After propensity score matching in a study of over 3,000 women with a personal history of breast cancer, researchers found that surveillance breast MRI facilitated a 59 percent lower risk in advanced presentations of second breast cancers.