Accuracy and Precision Assessment

2017 ◽  
pp. 71-75
Author(s):  
S. Suzanne Nielsen ◽  
Charles E. Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Accuracy And Precision ◽  
Precision Assessment

RETRACTED: Accuracy and Precision Assessment of High-Speed Measurements of Pavement Surface Cracking

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Serigos ◽  
P. Buddhavarapu ◽  
J. A. Prozzi ◽  
A. de Fortier Smit ◽  
M. R. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
Surface Cracking ◽  
Pavement Surface ◽  
Accuracy And Precision ◽  
Precision Assessment

scholarly journals Assessing Accuracy and Precision of 3D Augmented Reality Holographic models derived from DICOM data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus Uribe ◽  
Lan Vu ◽  
Benjamin Laguna ◽  
Jesse Courtier
Keyword(s):  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Ar Model ◽  
Fiducial Markers ◽  
Accuracy And Precision ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Precision Assessment ◽  
Microsoft Hololens ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Ar Models

Abstract Objective: Assess accuracy and precision of measurements on 3D Augmented reality (AR) models derived from CT DICOM data, and compare AR model measurements with PACS measurements. Materials/Methods: 5 individual 3D hologram models were produced using a CT phantom with fiducial markers set at varying distances. DICOM files were translated into 3D AR models using open source software. AR models were adapted for display on the Microsoft HoloLens using a novel application. AR models were projected and distances between the projected fiducial markers were measured. Finally, 5 measurements each were obtained of the holographic projected distances between fiducials in the x1, y1, and z1 labeled planes respectively for precision assessment. Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare measured distances on AGFA-PACS, AR models, and actual measured distances on phantom models. Results: No significant difference was found between gold standard measurements and either PACS measurements (p=0.9124) or AR measurements (p=0.8966). AR model measurements had a standard error of 0.24mm, 0.24mm, and 0.38mm in the x,y, and z planes respectively. Furthermore, measurements on AR models demonstrated a high degree of accuracy in comparison to gold standard measurements. Conclusion: Current AR technology is can produce reliable 3D AR models from CT DICOM data

scholarly journals Assessing Accuracy and Precision of 3D Augmented Reality Holographic models derived from DICOM data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus Uribe ◽  
Lan Vu ◽  
Benjamin Laguna ◽  
Jesse Courtier
Keyword(s):  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Ar Model ◽  
Fiducial Markers ◽  
Accuracy And Precision ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Precision Assessment ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Ar Models

Abstract Objective: Assess accuracy and precision of measurements on 3D Augmented reality (AR) models derived from CT DICOM data, and compare AR model measurements with PACS measurements. Materials/Methods: 5 individual 3D hologram models were produced using a CT phantom with fiducial markers set at varying distances. DICOM files were translated into 3D AR models using open source software. AR models were adapted for display on an AR device using a novel application. AR models were projected and distances between the projected fiducial markers were measured. Finally, 5 measurements each were obtained of the holographic projected distances between fiducials in the x1, y1, and z1 labeled planes respectively for precision assessment. Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare measured distances on AGFA-PACS, AR models, and actual measured distances on phantom models. Results: No significant difference was found between gold standard measurements and either PACS measurements (p=0.9124) or AR measurements (p=0.8966). AR model measurements had a standard error of 0.24mm, 0.24mm, and 0.38mm in the x,y, and z planes respectively. Furthermore, measurements on AR models demonstrated a high degree of accuracy in comparison to gold standard measurements. Conclusion: Current AR technology is can produce reliable 3D AR models from CT DICOM data

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document