[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-32284":3,"doc-seo-32284":27},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"file_id":15,"file_url":16,"file_type":17,"file_size":18,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":19,"is_downloadable":19,"audit_status":19,"page_count":20,"language":21,"language_code":22,"table_of_contents":23,"faqs":24,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":25,"read_time":26},32284,2336464648746,"Skyler","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c",8,"Research & Report","Comparison of detectability index between advanced model observer (AMO) and human observer (HO) measurements on CT images","This study compares the detectability index (d') from human observer (HO) 2-alternative forced choice measurements with advanced model observer (AMO) predictions for low-contrast object detection in CT. ACR 464 phantom data were used to derive task-transfer function and noise power spectrum at 100 and 200 mA, with a 6 HU, 5 mm, 15 mm FOV task and flat/Gaussian/Designer profiles. The NPWE AMO model shows stronger agreement with HO than NPW, with correlation r=0.931 vs r=0.725, supporting NPWE as a resource-efficient surrogate for clinical protocol optimization.","cbCaiolw0KO1dfpn","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiolw0KO1dfpn","pdf",1850028,1,12,"English","en","# Abstract\n## Purpose\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What does the detectability index (d') comparison focus on in CT imaging?\",\"answer\":\"The comparison targets d' values for low-contrast object detection, contrasting human observer (HO) performance using a 2-AFC task with advanced model observer (AMO) predictions.\"},{\"question\":\"How were the CT task and imaging data defined for the experiments?\",\"answer\":\"Task-transfer function and noise power spectrum were obtained from ACR 464 phantom images at 100 mA and 200 mA, using a task with 6 HU contrast, 5 mm diameter, and 15 mm FOV across flat, Gaussian, and Designer task profiles.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the NPWE AMO model outperform NPW when predicting human detectability?\",\"answer\":\"Including an eye filter improves alignment with HO performance; the NPWE model achieved very strong correlation with HO (r=0.931) compared with the moderate correlation for NPW (r=0.725).\"},{\"question\":\"What practical value does the NPWE model provide?\",\"answer\":\"The NPWE AMO model serves as a clinically valuable, resource-efficient surrogate for human performance, helping ensure that improvements in objective image-quality metrics correspond to enhanced diagnostic detectability. \"}]",1781044338,30,{"code":4,"msg":28,"data":29},"ok",{"site_id":30,"language":22,"slug":31,"title":13,"keywords":32,"description":14,"schema_data":33,"social_meta":88,"head_meta":90,"extra_data":92,"updated_unix":25},105,"comparison-of-detectability-index-between-advanced-model-observer-amo-and-human-observer-ho-measurements-on-ct-images","",{"@graph":34,"@context":87},[35,52,66],{"@type":36,"itemListElement":37},"BreadcrumbList",[38,42,46,49],{"item":39,"name":40,"@type":41,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":43,"name":44,"@type":41,"position":45},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":47,"name":12,"@type":41,"position":48},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":50,"name":13,"@type":41,"position":51},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/comparison-of-detectability-index-between-advanced-model-observer-amo-and-human-observer-ho-measurements-on-ct-images/32284/",4,{"url":50,"name":13,"@type":53,"author":54,"headline":13,"publisher":56,"fileFormat":59,"description":14,"dateModified":60,"datePublished":60,"encodingFormat":59,"isAccessibleForFree":61,"interactionStatistic":62},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":55},"Person",{"url":39,"name":57,"@type":58},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-06-09",true,{"@type":63,"interactionType":64,"userInteractionCount":4},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":65},"ViewAction",{"@type":67,"mainEntity":68},"FAQPage",[69,75,79,83],{"name":70,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":72},"What does the detectability index (d') comparison focus on in CT imaging?","Question",{"text":73,"@type":74},"The comparison targets d' values for low-contrast object detection, contrasting human observer (HO) performance using a 2-AFC task with advanced model observer (AMO) predictions.","Answer",{"name":76,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":77},"How were the CT task and imaging data defined for the experiments?",{"text":78,"@type":74},"Task-transfer function and noise power spectrum were obtained from ACR 464 phantom images at 100 mA and 200 mA, using a task with 6 HU contrast, 5 mm diameter, and 15 mm FOV across flat, Gaussian, and Designer task profiles.",{"name":80,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":81},"Why does the NPWE AMO model outperform NPW when predicting human detectability?",{"text":82,"@type":74},"Including an eye filter improves alignment with HO performance; the NPWE model achieved very strong correlation with HO (r=0.931) compared with the moderate correlation for NPW (r=0.725).",{"name":84,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":85},"What practical value does the NPWE model provide?",{"text":86,"@type":74},"The NPWE AMO model serves as a clinically valuable, resource-efficient surrogate for human performance, helping ensure that improvements in objective image-quality metrics correspond to enhanced diagnostic detectability.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":50,"og:type":89,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":57,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":91,"canonical":50},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":30}]