PubMed · 11832604
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S B Verma. Computers and vision.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11832604/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) systems have been around for over a decade now. The most visible components in a PACS system are the PACS workstations. Most of the clinical users of PACS only interact with the display hardware/software pieces and never truly think about the archival and communications that occur behind the scenes. This paper discusses the evolution of PACS display technology in the past 16 yr, which can roughly be divided into three phases and will also discuss future emerging trends.
Picture archiving and communication system (PACS) delivers images to the display workstations mostly through digital image communication in medicine (DICOM) protocols in radiology departments, and there are lots of medical applications in healthcare community needing to access PACS images for different application purposes. In this paper, we first reviewed a hospital-integrated PACS image data flow and typical diagnostic display software architecture, and discussed some Web technologies and Web-based image application server architectures, as well as image accessing and viewing methods in these architectures. Then, we present one approach to develop component-based image display architecture and use image processing and display component to build a diagnostic display workstation, and also, give a method to integrate this component into Web-based image distribution server to enable users using Web browsers to access, view and manipulate PACS DICOM images as easy as with PACS display workstations. Finally, we test and evaluate the performance of image loading and displaying by using the diagnostic display workstation and the component-based Web display system, the experimental results show that the image distribution and display performance from the Web server to browser clients is similar with that of the image loading and displaying procedure of the diagnostic workstation as more browser clients accessing the Web server at same time. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the Web-based image distribution and display in different medical applications.
With the introduction of digital flat-panel detector systems into clinical practice, the still unresolved question of resolution requirements for picture archiving communication system (PACS) workstation monitors has gained new momentum. This contrast detail analysis was thus performed to define the differences in observer performance in the detection of small low-contrast objects on clinical 1K and 2K monitor workstations. Images of the CDRAD 2.0 phantom were acquired at varying exposures on an indirect-type digital flat-panel detector. Three observers evaluated a total of 15 images each with respect to the threshold contrast for each detail size. The numbers of correctly identified objects were determined for all image subsets. No significant difference in the correct detection ratio was detected among the observers; however, the difference between the two types of workstations (1K vs 2K monitors) despite less than 3% was significant at a 95% confidence level. Slight but statistically significant differences exist in the detection of low-contrast nodular details visualized on 1K- and 2K-monitor workstations. Further work is needed to see if this result holds true also for comparison of clinical flat-panel detector images and may, for example, exert an influence on the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray readings.