Limits...
Evaluation of a Mathematical Model for Digital Image Enhancement.

Geha H, Nasseh I, Noujeim M - Open Dent J (2015)

Bottom Line: Results : There was no significant difference between the readers and between the first and second reading.The overall pattern was: "Poly" results in the highest counts, "Original" in the lowest counts, with "B/C" and "Equalized" intermediate.Conclusion : The 5th degree polynomial model showed more holes when compared to the other modalities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, United States.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the detected number of holes on a stepwedge on images resulting from the application of the 5th degree polynomial model compared to the images resulting from the application of linear enhancement. Material and Methods : A 10-step aluminum step wedge with holes randomly drilled on each step was exposed with three different kVp and five exposure times per kVp on a Schick33(®) sensor. The images were enhanced by brightness/contrast adjustment, histogram equalization and with the 5th degree polynomial model and compared to the original non-enhanced images by six observers in two separate readings. Results : There was no significant difference between the readers and between the first and second reading. There was a significant three-factor interaction among Method, Exposure time, and kVp in detecting holes. The overall pattern was: "Poly" results in the highest counts, "Original" in the lowest counts, with "B/C" and "Equalized" intermediate. Conclusion : The 5th degree polynomial model showed more holes when compared to the other modalities.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean number of counts by Method and Exposure, averagedover kVp, Observer and Reading.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4598423&req=5

Figure 4: Mean number of counts by Method and Exposure, averagedover kVp, Observer and Reading.

Mentions: Fig. (4) shows the average counts by Method and Exposure time, averaged over kVp, Observer, and Reading. The two-factor interaction was statistically significant. This is shown in the figure in which the differences between Methods vary with Exposure time. As indicated in the figure, average counts using Poly were significantly higher than obtained with the other methods for all exposure times. Average counts were lower using Original compared to the B/C and Equalized at all exposure times other than 0.064. B/C and Equalized were not significantly different at exposure times 0.016 and 0.04; at exposure time 0.025, 0.05, and 0.064, Equalized was significantly higher than B/C.


Evaluation of a Mathematical Model for Digital Image Enhancement.

Geha H, Nasseh I, Noujeim M - Open Dent J (2015)

Mean number of counts by Method and Exposure, averagedover kVp, Observer and Reading.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4598423&req=5

Figure 4: Mean number of counts by Method and Exposure, averagedover kVp, Observer and Reading.
Mentions: Fig. (4) shows the average counts by Method and Exposure time, averaged over kVp, Observer, and Reading. The two-factor interaction was statistically significant. This is shown in the figure in which the differences between Methods vary with Exposure time. As indicated in the figure, average counts using Poly were significantly higher than obtained with the other methods for all exposure times. Average counts were lower using Original compared to the B/C and Equalized at all exposure times other than 0.064. B/C and Equalized were not significantly different at exposure times 0.016 and 0.04; at exposure time 0.025, 0.05, and 0.064, Equalized was significantly higher than B/C.

Bottom Line: Results : There was no significant difference between the readers and between the first and second reading.The overall pattern was: "Poly" results in the highest counts, "Original" in the lowest counts, with "B/C" and "Equalized" intermediate.Conclusion : The 5th degree polynomial model showed more holes when compared to the other modalities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, United States.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the detected number of holes on a stepwedge on images resulting from the application of the 5th degree polynomial model compared to the images resulting from the application of linear enhancement. Material and Methods : A 10-step aluminum step wedge with holes randomly drilled on each step was exposed with three different kVp and five exposure times per kVp on a Schick33(®) sensor. The images were enhanced by brightness/contrast adjustment, histogram equalization and with the 5th degree polynomial model and compared to the original non-enhanced images by six observers in two separate readings. Results : There was no significant difference between the readers and between the first and second reading. There was a significant three-factor interaction among Method, Exposure time, and kVp in detecting holes. The overall pattern was: "Poly" results in the highest counts, "Original" in the lowest counts, with "B/C" and "Equalized" intermediate. Conclusion : The 5th degree polynomial model showed more holes when compared to the other modalities.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus