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 kVp, averagedover Exposure time, Observer and Reading.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 5: Mean number of counts by Method and kVp, averagedover Exposure time, Observer and Reading.

Mentions: Fig. (5) shows the average counts by Method and kVp, averaged over Exposure time, Observer, and Reading. The two-factor interaction was statistically significant. However, the changes with kVp indicate that the effect of kVp was small relative to the size of the effect of Method.


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 kVp, averagedover Exposure time, Observer and Reading.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 5: Mean number of counts by Method and kVp, averagedover Exposure time, Observer and Reading.
Mentions: Fig. (5) shows the average counts by Method and kVp, averaged over Exposure time, Observer, and Reading. The two-factor interaction was statistically significant. However, the changes with kVp indicate that the effect of kVp was small relative to the size of the effect of Method.

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