This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brennecke, R.u. Articles by Nissen, S. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brennecke, R.u. Articles by Nissen, S. E.

American College of Cardiology/ European Society of Cardiology international study of angiographic data compression phase III

Measurement of image quality differences at varying levels of data compression

R.üdiger Brennecke, PhD^*, Udo Bürgel, MS^*, R.üdiger Simon, MD, FACC, Gerd Rippin, MS, Hans Peter Fritsch, MS^*, Tim Becker, MS and Steven E. Nissen, MD, FACC

^* II Medical Clinic, Johannes-Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany
Medical Clinic, Albrechts-University Kiel, Germany
Department of Medical Statistics, Johannes-Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

View larger version (46K): [in a new window]   Figure 1 Allocation (percent of evaluations) of diagnostic quality scores (QD1, QD2; for score definition see Table 3) for DC+ (display controls enabled) and for DC– raters (display controls disabled).

View larger version (44K): [in a new window]   Figure 2 Allocation (percent of evaluations) of diagnostic quality scores (QD1, QD2; for score definition see Table 3) for GQ+ images (acceptable general image quality) and for GQ– images (general image quality not acceptable).

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Figure 3 Allocation (percent of evaluations) of quality scores QA and QD in relation to compression ratios, DC– rater group (13 raters). The scores and the gray scale patterns used for the quality scores are defined in Table 3.

View larger version (36K): [in a new window]   Figure 4 Allocation (percent of evaluations) of quality scores QA and QD in relation to compression ratios, DC+ rater group (6 raters). The scores and the gray scale patterns used for the quality scores are defined in Table 3.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Figure 5 Plot demonstrating the significance (p-value) of Student t-test for equivalence as a function of the tolerance limit delta for the total diagnostic error in the DC+ and the DC– rater groups at CR 10:1 and CR 16:1. Solid diamond = DC+ for CR 10:1; solid square = DC+ for CR 16:1; solid triangle = DC– for CR 10:1; x DC– for CR 16:1. The intercepts between these functions and the horizontal reference line (p = 0.05) define the delta that has to be accepted if one wants to consider the error distributions at baseline (CR 1:1) and at CR 10:1 or CR 16:1 as equal with p = 0.05. For results compare Table 9.