skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize the distribution of the deviation index (DI) in digital radiography practices across the United States. Methods: DI data was obtained from 10 collaborating institutions in the United States between 2012 and 2015. Each institution complied with the requirements of the Institutional Review Board at their site. DI data from radiographs of the body parts chest, abdomen, pelvis and extremity were analyzed for anteroposterior, posteroanterior, lateral, and decubitus views. The DI data was analyzed both in aggregate and stratified by exposure control method, image receptor technology, patient age, and participating site for each body part and view. The number of exposures with DI falling within previously published control limits for DI and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: DI data from 505,930 radiographic exposures was analyzed. The number of exposures with DI falling within published control limits for DI varied from 10 to 20% for adult patients and 10 to 23% for pediatric patients for different body parts and views. Mean DI values averaged over other parameters for radiographs of the abdomen, chest, pelvis, and extremities ranged from 0.3 to 1.0, −0.6 to 0.5, 0.8, and −0.9 to 0.5 for the different adult views and ranged from −1.6 tomore » −0.1, −0.3 to 0.5, −0.1, −0.2 to 1.4 for the different pediatric views, respectively (DI data was solicited only for anteroposterior view of pelvis). Standard deviation values of DI from individual sites ranged from 1.3 to 3.6 and 1.3 to 3.0 for the different adult and pediatric views, respectively. Also of interest was that target exposure indicators varied by up to a factor of 6 between sites for certain body parts and views. Conclusion: Previously published DI control limits do not reflect the state of clinical practice in digital radiography. Mean DI and target exposure indicators are targets for quality improvement efforts in radiography.« less

Authors:
;  [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [8];  [9];  [10]; ;  [11];  [12];  [13];  [14]
  1. UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
  2. Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  3. The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH (United States)
  4. The Cleveland Clinic, Beachwood, OH (United States)
  5. University Florida, Jacksonville Beach, FL (United States)
  6. University of Washington, Seattle, WA (United States)
  7. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (United States)
  8. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN (United States)
  9. Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA (United States)
  10. Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT (United States)
  11. Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI (United States)
  12. AGFA HealthCare, Greenville, SC (United States)
  13. FUJIFILM Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc., Weston, CT (United States)
  14. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Bellaire, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22654010
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; DENTISTRY; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGES; PATIENTS; PEDIATRICS; PELVIS

Citation Formats

Jones, A, Shepard, S, Dave, J, Fisher, R, Hulme, K, Rill, L, Zamora, D, Woodward, A, Brady, S, MacDougall, R, Goldman, L, Lang, S, Peck, D, Apgar, B, Uzenoff, R, and Willis, C. TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957578.
Jones, A, Shepard, S, Dave, J, Fisher, R, Hulme, K, Rill, L, Zamora, D, Woodward, A, Brady, S, MacDougall, R, Goldman, L, Lang, S, Peck, D, Apgar, B, Uzenoff, R, & Willis, C. TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957578.
Jones, A, Shepard, S, Dave, J, Fisher, R, Hulme, K, Rill, L, Zamora, D, Woodward, A, Brady, S, MacDougall, R, Goldman, L, Lang, S, Peck, D, Apgar, B, Uzenoff, R, and Willis, C. 2016. "TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957578.
@article{osti_22654010,
title = {TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States},
author = {Jones, A and Shepard, S and Dave, J and Fisher, R and Hulme, K and Rill, L and Zamora, D and Woodward, A and Brady, S and MacDougall, R and Goldman, L and Lang, S and Peck, D and Apgar, B and Uzenoff, R and Willis, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To characterize the distribution of the deviation index (DI) in digital radiography practices across the United States. Methods: DI data was obtained from 10 collaborating institutions in the United States between 2012 and 2015. Each institution complied with the requirements of the Institutional Review Board at their site. DI data from radiographs of the body parts chest, abdomen, pelvis and extremity were analyzed for anteroposterior, posteroanterior, lateral, and decubitus views. The DI data was analyzed both in aggregate and stratified by exposure control method, image receptor technology, patient age, and participating site for each body part and view. The number of exposures with DI falling within previously published control limits for DI and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: DI data from 505,930 radiographic exposures was analyzed. The number of exposures with DI falling within published control limits for DI varied from 10 to 20% for adult patients and 10 to 23% for pediatric patients for different body parts and views. Mean DI values averaged over other parameters for radiographs of the abdomen, chest, pelvis, and extremities ranged from 0.3 to 1.0, −0.6 to 0.5, 0.8, and −0.9 to 0.5 for the different adult views and ranged from −1.6 to −0.1, −0.3 to 0.5, −0.1, −0.2 to 1.4 for the different pediatric views, respectively (DI data was solicited only for anteroposterior view of pelvis). Standard deviation values of DI from individual sites ranged from 1.3 to 3.6 and 1.3 to 3.0 for the different adult and pediatric views, respectively. Also of interest was that target exposure indicators varied by up to a factor of 6 between sites for certain body parts and views. Conclusion: Previously published DI control limits do not reflect the state of clinical practice in digital radiography. Mean DI and target exposure indicators are targets for quality improvement efforts in radiography.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957578},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • The standard deviation (SD) quantifies the spread of the observed values on a measurement of an observable. In this paper, we study the distribution of SD among the different components of a superposition state. It is found that the SD of an observable on a superposition state can be well bounded by the SDs of the superposed states. We also show that the bounds also serve as good bounds on coherence of a superposition state. As a further generalization, we give an alternative definition of incompatibility of two observables subject to a given state and show how the incompatibility subjectmore » to a superposition state is distributed.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate and compare the scatter rejection properties and low-contrast performance of the scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR) technique to the slot-scan and conventional full-field digital radiography techniques for chest imaging. Methods: A prototype SEDR system was designed and constructed with an a-Se flat-panel (FP) detector to improve image quality in heavily attenuating regions of an anthropomorphic chest phantom. Slot-scanning geometry was used to reject scattered radiation without attenuating primary x rays. The readout scheme of the FP was modified to erase accumulated scatter signals prior to image readout. A 24-segment beam width modulator was developed to regulate x-raymore » exposures regionally and compensate for the low x-ray flux in heavily attenuating regions. To measure the scatter-to-primary ratios (SPRs), a 2 mm thick lead plate with a 2-D array of aperture holes was used to measure the primary signals, which were then subtracted from those obtained without the lead plate to determine scatter components. A 2-D array of aluminum beads (3 mm in diameter) was used as the low-contrast objects to measure the contrast ratios (CRs) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) for evaluating the low-contrast performance in chest phantom images. A set of two images acquired with the same techniques were subtracted from each other to measure the noise levels. SPRs, CRs, and CNRs of the SEDR images were measured in four anatomical regions of chest phantom images and compared to those of slot-scan images and full-field images acquired with and without antiscatter grid. Results: The percentage reduction of SPR (percentage of SPRs reduced with scatter removal/rejection methods relative to that for nongrid full-field imaging) averaged over four anatomical regions was measured to be 80%, 83%, and 71% for SEDR, slot-scan, and full-field with grid, respectively. The average CR over four regions was found to improve over that for nongrid full-field imaging by 259%, 279%, and 145% for SEDR, slot-scan, and full-field with grid, respectively. The average CNR over four regions was found to improve over that for nongrid full-field imaging by 201% for SEDR as compared to 133% for the slot-scan technique and 14% for the antiscatter grid method. Conclusions: Both SEDR and slot-scan techniques outperformed the antiscatter grid method used in standard full-field radiography. For imaging with the same effective exposure, the SEDR technique offers no advantage over the slot-scan method in terms of SPRs and CRs. However, it improves CNRs significantly, especially in heavily attenuating regions. The improvement of low-contrast performance may help improve the detection of the lung nodules or other abnormalities and may offer SEDR the potential for dose reduction in chest radiography.« less
  • A study was conducted to characterize emergency field monitoring team practices at commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. Using written surveys and telephone interviews, 55 facilities were polled regarding equipment used, team staffing, duties, transportation, personnel protection measures, management techniques, and prevalent problem areas. The results indicate that standard practice includes use of Geiger-Mueller survey meters and ion chambers for plume location and dose-rate estimation. Field screening counts of I and particulate air samples are performed by 71% of respondents, with 29% screening only I cartridges. Two or three two-person teams are typical. Teams compare open- and closed-windowmore » survey results (91%) or readings taken at various elevations (55%) to determine plume location or the extent of ground contamination. While 87% make respirators available to team members, 49% do not have pre-established criteria for respirator use. Potassium iodide is made available to team members by 96% of the facilities surveyed. Communication and vehicle problems are most prevalent.A« less
  • United States coal preparation practices today are directed toward closed water circuits, the maximization of Btu recovery, fine-size coal washing, and three shift per day operation.