% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Pahn:130293,
      author       = {G. Pahn and S. Skornitzke and H.-P. Schlemmer$^*$ and H.-U.
                      Kauczor$^*$ and W. Stiller$^*$},
      title        = {{T}oward standardized quantitative image quality ({IQ})
                      assessment in computed tomography ({CT}): {A} comprehensive
                      framework for automated and comparative {IQ} analysis based
                      on {ICRU} {R}eport 87.},
      journal      = {Physica medica},
      volume       = {32},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {1120-1797},
      address      = {Amsterdam},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2017-05372},
      pages        = {104 - 115},
      year         = {2016},
      abstract     = {Based on the guidelines from 'Report 87: Radiation Dose and
                      Image-quality Assessment in Computed Tomography' of the
                      International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements
                      (ICRU), a software framework for automated quantitative
                      image quality analysis was developed and its usability for a
                      variety of scientific questions demonstrated.The extendable
                      framework currently implements the calculation of the
                      recommended Fourier image quality (IQ) metrics modulation
                      transfer function (MTF) and noise-power spectrum (NPS), and
                      additional IQ quantities such as noise magnitude, CT number
                      accuracy, uniformity across the field-of-view,
                      contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio
                      (SNR) of simulated lesions for a commercially available
                      cone-beam phantom. Sample image data were acquired with
                      different scan and reconstruction settings on CT systems
                      from different manufacturers.Spatial resolution is analyzed
                      in terms of edge-spread function, line-spread-function, and
                      MTF. 3D NPS is calculated according to ICRU Report 87, and
                      condensed to 2D and radially averaged 1D representations.
                      Noise magnitude, CT numbers, and uniformity of these
                      quantities are assessed on large samples of ROIs.
                      Low-contrast resolution (CNR, SNR) is quantitatively
                      evaluated as a function of lesion contrast and diameter.
                      Simultaneous automated processing of several image datasets
                      allows for straightforward comparative assessment.The
                      presented framework enables systematic, reproducible,
                      automated and time-efficient quantitative IQ analysis.
                      Consistent application of the ICRU guidelines facilitates
                      standardization of quantitative assessment not only for
                      routine quality assurance, but for a number of research
                      questions, e.g. the comparison of different scanner models
                      or acquisition protocols, and the evaluation of new
                      technology or reconstruction methods.},
      keywords     = {Contrast Media (NLM Chemicals)},
      cin          = {E010 / E015},
      ddc          = {530},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E015-20160331},
      pnm          = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:26520485},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.017},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/130293},
}