A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Artifacts in slab average-intensity-projection images reformatted from JPEG 2000 compressed thin-section abdominal CT data sets. | LitMetric

Objective: The objective of our study was to assess the effects of compressing source thin-section abdominal CT images on final transverse average-intensity-projection (AIP) images.

Materials And Methods: At reversible, 4:1, 6:1, 8:1, 10:1, and 15:1 Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) 2000 compressions, we compared the artifacts in 20 matching compressed thin sections (0.67 mm), compressed thick sections (5 mm), and AIP images (5 mm) reformatted from the compressed thin sections. The artifacts were quantitatively measured with peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and a perceptual quality metric (High Dynamic Range Visual Difference Predictor [HDR-VDP]). By comparing the compressed and original images, three radiologists independently graded the artifacts as 0 (none, indistinguishable), 1 (barely perceptible), 2 (subtle), or 3 (significant). Friedman tests and exact tests for paired proportions were used.

Results: At irreversible compressions, the artifacts tended to increase in the order of AIP, thick-section, and thin-section images in terms of PSNR (p < 0.0001), HDR-VDP (p < 0.0001), and the readers' grading (p < 0.01 at 6:1 or higher compressions). At 6:1 and 8:1, distinguishable pairs (grades 1-3) tended to increase in the order of AIP, thick-section, and thin-section images. Visually lossless threshold for the compression varied between images but decreased in the order of AIP, thick-section, and thin-section images (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Compression artifacts in thin sections are significantly attenuated in AIP images. On the premise that thin sections are typically reviewed using an AIP technique, it is justifiable to compress them to a compression level currently accepted for thick sections.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3405DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

thin sections
16
order aip
12
aip thick-section
12
thick-section thin-section
12
thin-section images
12
images
9
images reformatted
8
jpeg 2000
8
thin-section abdominal
8
compressed thin
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!