This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Browse events

100 Second Science
Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today

Latest webinar


Simulating Heat Transfer with COMSOL®: Knowing Your Material Properties

View this free webinar

Featured video


Watch the video, Introduction to Virtual NanoLab as GUI for VASP

QuantumWise A/S

In this video you will learn how to create POSCAR files in Virtual NanoLab and how to create input files for VASP calculations using the VASP Scripter of Virtual NanoLab.

Contact us for advertising information

About this event

Web site…
14 Oct 2014
London, United Kingdom
Registration deadline
Oct 3, 2014
Mayneord-Phillips Trust
Contact address
Dimitra Darambara
The Institute of Cancer Research & The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
United Kingdom


Multi-modality Routine Image Quality Assessment: QC/QA and Standards

"The clinicians complain about the images but the system passes my tests"
"Task based assessment of image quality"
"Two hours to test everything?...I'll do my best!"
"What about image processing - how do we disable that?"

The Mayneord-Philips Trust is organizing a one day scientific meeting with the aim of exploring the potential disjoin in radiological imaging between the typical physics test object assessment of image quality and clinical image quality. The meeting is cross modality, with contributions covering standard projection x-ray imaging (diagnostic, mammography), dynamic x-ray imaging (fluoroscopy, DSA), CT, Nuclear Medicine, MRI and ultrasound.

What are we to believe about image quality and QA? Are physicists measuring clinically relevant image quality and disagreements between physics quality and clinical quality rare? Perhaps simple physics test objects in routine use can show significant changes in component performance, but lack the sophistication to identify specific systems settings for a given clinical task. In the worst case, we are not measuring clinically relevant parameters and the test objects are barely sensitive to changes in performance. To what extent should we rely on the clinical users' impression (as well as their expectations and pre-conceptions) of image quality?

Within the time constraints imposed by clinical reality, and given the richness and complexity of many clinical tasks, can we hope to measure a clinically relevant 'system' image quality with any precision? Should we stick to a focused set of tests that characterize component performance? If dose-quality trade-off is absent, as in ultrasound and MR, then do these modalities require a different approach? This meeting hopes to explore these ideas, with the aim of clarifying the relationship between "test object image quality" and clinical image quality, what's achievable, what we should aim for in the future.