A comparison of two compression algorithms and the detection of caries.

Janhom, Apirum; Stelt, P F van der; Sanderink, G.C.H.

doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600704

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Janhom et al [2002] observed insignificant differences for JPEG-and JPEG2000-compressed radiographs compared to digitized 'originals'. Pabla et al [2003] also reported non-significant differences for JPEG compression levels between 1: 2.5-1: 16.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…The majority of investigations into the detection of natural caries [Janhom et al, 1999[Janhom et al, , 2000Pabla et al, 2003;Wenzel et al, 1996] or artificial lesions [Koenig et al, 2004] on compressed radiographs are based on the wellestablished Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) compression standard. We found only one paper [Janhom et al, 2002] using the more advanced wavelet compression technique detailed below.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although intra-oral images are small in size, if they are to be stored in huge numbers (for instance in picture archiving and communication systems) or to be quickly transferred in computer networks, size reduction should be beneficial. A few publications deal with radiographic dental image compression in general [Koenig et al, 2004;Eraso et al, 2002;Fidler et al, 2002;Gürdal et al, 2001;Siragusa and McDonnell, 2002] or caries detection in particular [Fidler et al, 2006a;Janhom et al, 2000Janhom et al, , 2002Pabla et al, 2003;Wenzel et al, 1996]. Caries detection was either carried out on patient radiographs [Janhom et al, 1999[Janhom et al, , 2000 or on in vitro radiographs [Janhom et al, 2002;Pabla et al, 2003].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effect of Wavelet and Discrete Cosine Transform Compression of Digital Radiographs on the Detection of Subtle Proximal Caries

Schulze

Richter²,

dʼHoedt

2008

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study compared diagnostic performances of 2 different image compression methods: JPEG (discrete cosine transform; Joint Photographic Experts Group compression standard) versus JPEG2000 (discrete wavelet transform), both at a compression ratio of 12:1, from the original uncompressed TIFF radiograph with respect to the detection of non-cavitated carious lesions. Therefore, 100 approximal surfaces of 50 tooth pairs were evaluated on the radiographs by 10 experienced observers using a 5-point confidence scale. Observations were carried out on a standardized viewing monitor under subdued light conditions. The proportion of diseased surfaces was balanced to approximately 50% to avoid bias. True caries status was assessed by serial ground sectioning and microscopic evaluation. A non-parametric receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed non-significant differences between the 3 image modalities, as computed from the critical ratios z not exceeding ±2 (JPEG/JPEG2000, z = –0.0339; TIFF/JPEG2000, z = 0.251;TIFF/JPEG, z = 0.914). The mean area beneath the curve was highest for TIFF (0.604) followed by JPEG2000 (0.593) and JPEG (0.591). Both intra-rater and inter-rater agreement were significantly higher for TIFF (ĸ_intra = 0.52; ĸ_inter = 0.40) and JPEG2000 images (ĸ_intra = 0.49; ĸ_inter = 0.38) than for JPEG images (ĸ_intra = 0.33; ĸ_inter = 0.35). Our results indicate that image compression with typical compression algorithms at rates yielding storage sizes of around 50 kB is sufficient even for the challenging task of radiographic detection of non-cavitated carious approximal lesions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Wavelet and Discrete Cosine Transform Compression of Digital Radiographs on the Detection of Subtle Proximal Caries

Schulze

Richter²,

dʼHoedt

2008

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wavelet-based coding has emerged as a state-of-the-art technology within the field of image compression and appears to be more robust than other compression techniques with respect to transmission and decoding errors as well as facilitates the progressive transmission of images. Different studies that have compared the DCT technique to wavelet transformation in different kinds of radiological images with different compression ratios provided contradictory results [18][19][20][21]. In immunohistochemical digital images, there is no agreement about whether JPEG2000 is better than JPEG or if differences are indistinguishable at lower or higher compression ratios with the two formats.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

JPEG2000 for automated quantification of immunohistochemically stained cell nuclei: a comparative study with standard JPEG format

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) standard format is one of the most widely used in image compression technologies. More recently, JPEG2000 format has emerged as a state-of-the-art technology that provides substantial improvements in picture quality at higher compression ratios. However, there has been no attempt to date to determine which of the two compression formats produces less variability in the automated evaluation of immunohistochemically stained digital images in agreement with their compression rates and complexity degrees. The evaluation of Ki67 and FOXP3 immunohistochemical nuclear markers was performed in a total of 329 digital images: 47 were captured in uncompressed Tagged Image File Format (TIFF), 141 were converted to three JPEG compressed formats (47 each with 1:3, 1:23 and 1:46 compression) and 141 were converted to three JPEG2000 compressed formats (47 each with 1:3, 1:23 and 1:46 compression). The count differences between images in TIFF versus JPEG formats were compared with those obtained between images in TIFF versus JPEG2000 formats at the three levels of compression. It was found that, using JPEG2000 compression, the results of the stained nuclei count are close enough to the results obtained with uncompressed images, especially in highly complex images at minimum and medium compression. Otherwise, in images of low complexity, JPEG and JPEG2000 had similar count efficiency to that of the original TIFF images at all compression levels. These data suggest that JPEG2000 could give rise to an efficient means of storage, reducing file size and storage capacity, without compromise on the immunohistochemical analytical quality.

show abstract

“…For some time now, considerable effort has been made to evaluate digital image compression techniques to permit the image quality required for medical images [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. These evaluations include subjective and objective metrics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

JPEG2000 Still Image Coding Quality

Chen

Lin

et al. 2013

J Digit Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work demonstrates the image qualities between two popular JPEG2000 programs. Two medical image compression algorithms are both coded using JPEG2000, but they are different regarding the interface, convenience, speed of computation, and their characteristic options influenced by the encoder, quantization, tiling, etc. The differences in image quality and compression ratio are also affected by the modality and compression algorithm implementation. Do they provide the same quality? The qualities of compressed medical images from two image compression programs named Apollo and JJ2000 were evaluated extensively using objective metrics. These algorithms were applied to three medical image modalities at various compression ratios ranging from 10:1 to 100:1. Following that, the quality of the reconstructed images was evaluated using five objective metrics. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients were measured under every metric in the two programs. We found that JJ2000 and Apollo exhibited indistinguishable image quality for all images evaluated using the above five metrics (r>0.98, p<0.001). It can be concluded that the image quality of the JJ2000 and Apollo algorithms is statistically equivalent for medical image compression.

show abstract

A comparison of two compression algorithms and the detection of caries.

Cited by 21 publications

References 20 publications

The Effect of Wavelet and Discrete Cosine Transform Compression of Digital Radiographs on the Detection of Subtle Proximal Caries

The Effect of Wavelet and Discrete Cosine Transform Compression of Digital Radiographs on the Detection of Subtle Proximal Caries

JPEG2000 for automated quantification of immunohistochemically stained cell nuclei: a comparative study with standard JPEG format

JPEG2000 Still Image Coding Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About