Skip to main content

Table 3 Assessment of image quality

From: Radiological findings in ancient Egyptian canopic jars: comparing three standard clinical imaging modalities (x-rays, CT and MRI)

 

Jar 607

Jar 617

Jar 622-1

Jar 610-2

Average

R1

R2

Average

R1

R2

Average

R1

R2

Average

R1

R2

Average

R1

R2

Average

CT

Noise and artefacts

4

3

3.50

4

4

4.00

3

4

3.50

3

4

3.50

3.50

3.75

3.63

Differentiation of structures

3

3

3.00

3

2

2.50

3

2

2.50

3

2

2.50

3.00

2.25

2.63

Overall diagnostic value

2

2

2.00

3

2

2.50

3

1

2.00

2

1

1.50

2.50

1.50

2.00

Average

3.00

2.67

2.83

3.33

2.67

3.00

3.00

2.33

2.67

2.67

2.33

2.50

3.00

2.50

2.75

MRI

Noise and artefacts

2

2

2.00

2

2

2.00

2

2

2.00

Not performed

2.00

2.00

2.00

Differentiation of structures

3

2

2.50

2

2

2.00

1

2

1.50

2.00

2.00

2.00

Overall diagnostic value

2

1

1.50

2

1

1.50

1

1

1.00

1.67

1.00

1.33

Average

2.33

1.67

2.00

2.00

1.67

1.83

1.33

1.67

1.50

1.89

1.67

1.78

X-rays

Noise and artefacts

Not performed

2

3

2.50

2

3

2.50

2

3

2.50

2.00

3.00

2.50

Differentiation of structures

1

2

1.50

2

2

2.00

1

2

1.50

1.33

2.00

1.67

Overall diagnostic value

1

1

1.00

1

1

1.00

1

1

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Average

1.33

2.00

1.67

1.67

2.00

1.83

1.33

2.00

1.67

1.44

2.00

1.72

  1. R1 reader 1, R2 reader 2
  2. Subjective image quality was assessed in terms of noise, differentiation of present structures and overall diagnostic value. Noise was graded as follows: 4, very low; 3, low; 2, considerable with preserved diagnostic image quality; 1, high, causing non-diagnostic image quality. The other parameters were scored as follows: 4, excellent; 3, good; 2, suboptimal, but still diagnostic; and 1, unacceptable and non-diagnostic