• Korean Journal of Digital Imaging in Medicine
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.9-18
• /
• 2003

디지털 영상 검출기와 디스플레이 기술의 발달과 의료영상전달시스템(PACS)의 출현은 전통적 필름방식에 비하여 디지털 방식으로 방사선과 영상을 획득하고 전송, 저장하는 매우 효과적인 수단을 제공하고 있다. 2002년 8월, 연세의료원 세브란스병원은 진단 영상 판독 목적으로 18 대의 CRT(Braco View, Belgium)와 32대의 평판 LCD(Totoku Electric Co., Ltd., Japan) 디스플레이 장치를 GE full-PACS(GE 메디칼시스템코리아 : GEMSK)와 연계하여 설치 완료하였다. 본 연구에서, 기하학적 왜곡, 반사, 휘도 반응, 휘도 균일도, 분해능, 노이즈,베일링 글레어, 칼라 균일도 항목들을 AAPM TG18 보고서 9.0에 따라서 시각적 그리고 부분적으로는 정량적인 방법으로 인수검사를 실시하여 보고한다. 사용된 장비는 색도계로도 사용되는 간편한 휘도계, TG18 테스트 패던, AAPM Tg18 AT plug-in software(Barco View Ltd., Kortrijk, Belgium)이었다. 칼라 균일도를 제외한 모든 테스트 결과는 AAPM TG18에서 권고하는 기준에 일치하였으며 진단 영상 판독에 사용하기에 전적으로 수락할 수 있는 성능이었다. 결론으로, 사용된 인수검사는 단지 인수 검사 표준을 제공하는 것 뿐만 아니라 품질검사(QC)의 지침, 판독 환경의 최적화 그리고 교체 시기나 업그레이드 시기를 결정하여주는 중요한 역할을 할 수 있을 것이다.

• Korean Journal of Digital Imaging in Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.21-28
• /
• 2008

Diagnostic display monitor QA according to AAPM TG18 is usually performed by PACS administrator, product manager and reading doctor, and for acceptance testing and periodic quality control evaluation, a combination of visual and quantitative tests can be used, as outlined in sections 5 and 6 of 'assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems'. Although many display tests can be performed visually, a more objective and quantitative evaluation of display performance requires special test tools. The required instruments vary in their complexity and cost, depending on the context of the evaluation(research, acceptance testing, or quality control) and how thorough the evaluation needs to be. Objective and reliable assessment of many display characteristics can be performed with relatively inexpensive equipment, So, we made 'AAPM TG18 guiding instrument' to ues variable purpose of the evaluation of 'geometrical distortions(quantitative"', 'veiling glare(visual)' and 'sensor calibration'. The spatial measurements for the quantitative evaluation of geometric distortions, and the measurement of the veling-glare ring response function which provides information regarding the spatial extent of the luminance spread, can be performed using the TG18 guiding instrument can be used to sensor calibration to standardize the basic rate of 0% luminance when periodic calibration.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2006.08a
• /
• pp.46-46
• /
• 2006

• Korean Journal of Digital Imaging in Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.57-60
• /
• 2015

병원에서 사용되는 임상용 모니터의 관리는 중요하다. 모니터의 기본적 관리는 휘도이며, 휘도에서도 균일도가 가장 먼저 관리되는 대상이다. 특히 LCD 모니터인 경우 균일도에 문제가 모니터의 교체주기와 일치하는 경우가 많다. 휘도에 대한 평가는 여러 가지가 존재하지만, 본 연구에서는 AAPM TG18에 따라 TG18-UNL10, TG18-UNL80을 이용하여 휘도의 균일도를 조사하였다. 이 조사과정에서 측정값 중 가장 높은 수치를 기준으로 나머지 값의 편차를 구하는 방법과 평균값을 이용하여 측정값의 편차를 구하는 방법 두 가지를 사용하였으며, 두 가지 방법의 유의성을 알아보고자 휘도의 편차 변화량 즉, 균일도를 측정하였다. 휘도 균일도의 정량평가는 향후 모니터의 관리에 가장 큰 영향을 미치는 인자로써 측정기간 중 변화량은 매우 적게 나타났다. 따라서 본 연구에서 제시된 최대, 최소값의 편차나 평균값의 상대 편차값 모두 유의한 결과를 얻을 수 있었다.

• Journal of The Korean Radiological Technologist Association
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.198-198
• /
• 2003

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.98-106
• /
• 2007

In June 2005, Yonsei University Medical Center, Severance Hospital upgraded a full-PACS system by adding twenty (5 mega pixels) Totoku ME511L flat panel LCD display devices for diagnostic interpretation purposes. Here we report upon the quantitative (or visual) acceptance testing of the twenty Totoku ME511L display devices for reflection, luminance response, luminance spatial dependency, resolution, noise, veiling glare, and display chromaticity based on AAPM TG 18 report. The tools used in the tests included a telescopic photometer, which was used as a colorimeter, illuminance meter, light sources for reflection assessment, light-blocking devices, and digital TG18 test patterns. For selected 8 flat panel displays, mean diffuse reflection coefficient ($R_d$) was $0.019{\pm}0.02sr^{-1}$. In the luminance response test, luminance ratio (LR), maximum luminance difference ($L_{max}$), and deviation of contrast response were $550{\pm}100,\;2.0{\pm}1.9%\;and\;5.8{\pm}1.8%$, respectively. In the luminance uniformity test, maximum luminance deviation was $14.3{\pm}5.5%$ for the 10% luminance of the TG18-UNL10 test pattern. In the resolution test with luminance measurement method, percent luminance (${\Dalta}L$) at the center was $0.94{\pm}0.64%$. In all cases of noise testing, rectangular target In every square in the three quadrants was visible and all 15 targets except the smallest one in the every corner pattern and the center pattern. The glare ratio (GR) was $12,346{\pm}1,995$. The color uniformity, (u',v'), was $0.0025{\pm}0.0008$. Also, the research results of qualify control guideline of primary disply devices suitable for domestic circumstance are presented All test results are in-line with the criteria recommended by AAPM TG18 report and are thus fully acceptable for diagnostic image interpretation. As a result, the acceptance testing schedule described provides not only an acceptance standard but also guidelines for quality control, optimized viewing conditions, and a means for determining the upgrading time of LCD display devices for diagnostic interpretation.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.55-60
• /
• 2008

Purpose: This study is to decide a quality control and calibration period of LCD display devices used for reading diagnostic images. Materias and Methods: The assessment test of 20 flat panel LCD color display devices used for reading diagnostic images were performed based on AAPM TG 18 protocol over the total six sessions at one month intervals from three months after primary calibration, in terms of geometric distortion, reflection test, luminance response evaluation, luminance uniformity, resolution, noise, veiling glare and chromaticity test. Results: The results of geometric distortion, reflection test, luminance uniformity, resolution, noise, veiling glare and chromaticity test were within the criteria recommended by AAPM TG 18, except for luminance response evaluation. In the measured luminance deviation of luminance response evaluation, 4(25%) of 20 display devices were passed a criterion from four months after calibration, and 11 (55%) were passed from eight months. Also in the contrast response of the luminance response evaluation, 1(5%) display device was passed a criterion from four months after calibration, and 3(15%) were passed from eight months. Conclusion: Considering the passing deviation after calibration, the time required and a manpower, the quality control and calibration period of LCD display devices used for reading diagnostic images should be a three months and six months after calibration.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.267-276
• /
• 1998

Any detector inserted into a phantom should have such a geometry that it caused as small as possible perturbation of the electron fluence. Plane parallel chambers meet this requirement better than other chambers of configurations. IAEA protocol recommends the use of plane parallel chambers for this reason. However, the cylindrical chambers are widely used for convenient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the absorbed dose due to the differences of four different dosimetry protocols such as IAEA protocol using cylindrical chamber, TG 21 protocol using cylindrical chamber, Markus protocol using plane parallel chamber, and TG 39 report for the calibration of plane parallel chamber in electron beams. Depth-ionization measurements for the electron beams of nominal energy 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV from Siemens accelerator with a 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size were made using a radiation field analyser with 0.125 cc ion chamber. Dosimetric measurements by IAEA and TG 21 protocol were made with a farmer type ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. Dosimetric measurements by Markus protocol were made with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. The cavity-gas calibration factor for the plane parallel chamber was obtained with the use of 18 MeV electron beam as guided by TG 39 report. Dosimetric measurements by TG 39 were performed with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. For all the energies and protocols, measurements were made along the central axis of the distance of 100 cm (SSD = 100 cm) with 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size at the depth of d$_{max}$ for each electron beam, respectively. In the case of 18 MeV, the discrepancy of 0.9 % between IAEA and TG 21 was found and the two protocols were agreed within 0.7 % for other energies. In the case of 18 MeV and 6 MeV, the discrepancies of $\pm$ 0.8 % between Markus and TG 39 was found, respectively and the two protocols were agreed within 0.5 % for other energies. Since the discrepancy of 1.6 % between cylindrical and plane parallel chamber was found for 18 MeV, it is suggested to get the calibration factor using other method as guided. by TG 39.9.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.77-82
• /
• 2006

The image display is an Important component of PACS and of medical digital imaging chain. Displayed image qualify is affected by the physical characteristics of display device, appropriate clinical settings and calibrations, and ambient lighting conditions. The performance of display systems is continuously degraded over time due to luminance deterioration and changes of clinical setting parameters. A routine QC is recommended because the performance of display systems is continuously degraded over time. Ten flat panel monochrome LCD display devices were included in the evaluation of the QC effect. The effect of QC on primary class LCD medical display devices for selected QC tests was evaluated by comparing the performances, luminance response, luminance dependencies, display resolution and display chromaticity in this study, of before and after the calibration procedures. The effects of the QC are significant to luminance response and luminance spatial dependencies test and the other side, are slight to the display resolution and display chromaticity test. A routine QC of display device is essential for the consistency of medical image display and presentation. The study of the QC effects of display devices will play an important role in practical QC procedures of display devices.

• Korean Journal of Digital Imaging in Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.53-65
• /
• 2007

PACS has been run at the Kyung Hee University Medical Center(KHMC) since 2001, and the installation and operation of PACS have contributed to automation and quantification of KHMC's medical environment During these five years our greatest concern is how to make our own guiding principle of diagnostic monitor QA which is adapted to international standards. In accordance with the terms of 'KHMC QA Guideline', 'AAPM TG18', 'SMPTE RP133', 'DICOM Part14', 'DIN V 6868-57', 'JESRA X-0093', 'JIS Z4752-2-5' and 'KCARE', concern about quality assurance of medical images are on the increase. With the investigation of acceptance testing and quality control of international standards for medical display devices, and data collection and analysis for recommended guideline, it is reported that acceptance testing(quality control), including geometrical distortion, display reflection, luminance response, luminance uniformity, display resolution, display noise, veiling glare and color chromaticity being adequate and effective to domestic hospital environments for medical display devices and assessment methods according to each performance. Accordingly, KHMC classified the checkpoint items by period, at the time of monitor setting, monthly, quarterly, half-yearly and annually. Periodic classification of checkpoint items for monitor QA makes a good guideline for image QA/QC and useful guideline for persistent good quality of monitor.