Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Each metric was scored between 0–3, 0 = best, 3 = worst.

The accumulative metrics of image quality were combined to form an image complexity score.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Each radiograph was characterized by the presence of pneumothorax, the size of pneumothorax and image complexity.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Portable chest radiograph of intensive care unit patient demonstrating the appearances of the conventional (A) and edge enhanced (B) images with corresponding magnified views demonstrating a small right apical pneumothorax (C, D).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 3.

Reader performance in pneumothorax detection using conventional chest radiography and edge enhancement software reader performance in pneumothorax detection using conventional chest radiography (first and second read) and additional edge enhancement software (third read).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Comparison of reader performance for pneumothorax detection using conventional (first and second read) and additional edge enhanced radiographs (third read).

P-value has been calculated between second read AUC and third read AUC using the Hanley & McNeil method.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

The number of the uncertain answers (score 3) using conventional chest radiography (first and second read) and additional edge enhancement software (third read).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Time taken to perform reads (time in seconds; SD = standard deviation).

p-value: t-test (paired samples). ■ = Read 1 compared to read 2. ▲ = Read 1 compared to time (read 2 + read 3).

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 2.

Reader preference for pneumothorax detection using conventional (C-CXR) or edge enhanced radiographs (E-CXR) or both.

More »

Fig 2 Expand