Search

Your search keyword '"Kim, Don-Soo"' showing total 16 results
Start Over Author "Kim, Don-Soo" Publication Year Range Last 10 years
16 results on '"Kim, Don-Soo"'

1. Patient Radiation Doses in IR Procedures: The American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy Pilot

Author

Jones, A. Kyle, Wunderle, Kevin A., Fruscello, Tom, Simanowith, Michael, Cline, Brendan, Dharmadhikari, Shalmali, Duan, Xinhui, Durack, Jeremy C., Hirschl, David, Kim, Don-Soo, Mahmood, Usman, Mann, Steve D., Martin, Charles, III, Metwalli, Zeyad, Moirano, Jeffrey M., Neill, Rebecca A., Newsome, Janice, Padua, Horacio, Schoenfeld, Alan H., and Miller, Donald L.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Patient Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology Procedures: Comparison of Fluoroscopy Dose Indices between the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy Pilot and the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology Study

Author

Jones, A. Kyle, Wunderle, Kevin A., Fruscello, Tom, Simanowith, Michael, Cline, Brendan, Dharmadhikari, Shalmali, Duan, Xinhui, Durack, Jeremy C., Hirschl, David, Kim, Don-Soo, Mahmood, Usman, Mann, Steve D., Martin, Charles, III, Metwalli, Zeyad, Moirano, Jeffrey M., Neill, Rebecca A., Newsome, Janice, Padua, Horacio, Schoenfeld, Alan H., and Miller, Donald L.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Patient Radiation Doses in IR Procedures: The American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy Pilot

Author

Jones, A. Kyle, primary, Wunderle, Kevin A., additional, Fruscello, Tom, additional, Simanowith, Michael, additional, Cline, Brendan, additional, Dharmadhikari, Shalmali, additional, Duan, Xinhui, additional, Durack, Jeremy C., additional, Hirschl, David, additional, Kim, Don-Soo, additional, Mahmood, Usman, additional, Mann, Steve D., additional, Martin, Charles, additional, Metwalli, Zeyad, additional, Moirano, Jeffrey M., additional, Neill, Rebecca A., additional, Newsome, Janice, additional, Padua, Horacio, additional, Schoenfeld, Alan H., additional, and Miller, Donald L., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. AAPM Task Group Report 272: Comprehensive acceptance testing and evaluation of fluoroscopy imaging systems

Author

Lin, Pei‐Jan Paul, primary, Goode, Allen R., additional, Corwin, Frank D., additional, Fisher, Ryan F., additional, Balter, Stephen, additional, Wunderle, Kevin A., additional, Schueler, Beth A., additional, Kim, Don‐Soo, additional, Zhang, Jie, additional, Zhou, Yifang (Jimmy), additional, Jenkins, Peter A., additional, Mahmood, Usman, additional, Lin, Teh, additional, Zhao, Hui, additional, Park, Mi‐Ae, additional, Trianni, Annalisa, additional, Lendle, Markus, additional, Kuhls‐Gilcrist, Andrew, additional, Jans, Jan C., additional, Desponds, Lionel, additional, Banasiak, Gene, additional, Backes, Steve, additional, Snyder, Carl, additional, Snyder, Angela, additional, Lu, Minghui, additional, and Gonzalez, Scott, additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. A diagnostic medical physicist’s guide to the American College of Radiology Fluoroscopy Dose Index Registry

Author

Jones, A. Kyle, primary, Wunderle, Kevin A., additional, Gress, Dustin A., additional, Simanowith, Michael, additional, Zacharias‐Andrews, Kay, additional, Dharmadhikari, Shalmali, additional, Duan, Xinhui, additional, Kim, Don‐Soo, additional, Mahmood, Usman, additional, Mann, Steve D., additional, Moirano, Jeffrey M., additional, Neill, Rebecca A., additional, and Schoenfeld, Alan H., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Accuracy and calibration of integrated radiation output indicators in diagnostic radiology: A report of the AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 190

Author

Lin, Pei-Jan P., primary, Schueler, Beth A., additional, Balter, Stephen, additional, Strauss, Keith J., additional, Wunderle, Kevin A., additional, LaFrance, M. Terry, additional, Kim, Don-Soo, additional, Behrman, Richard H., additional, Shepard, S. Jeff, additional, and Bercha, Ishtiaq H., additional

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. Patient Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology Procedures: The American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy (DIR-Fluoro) Pilot.

Author

Jones, A. Kyle, Wunderle, Kevin A., Fruscello, Tom, Simanowith, Michael, Cline, Brendan, Dharmadhikari, Shalmali, Duan, Xinhui, Durack, Jeremy C., Hirschl, David, Kim, Don-Soo, Mahmood, Usman, Mann, Steve D., Martin III, Charles, Metwalli, Zeyad, Moirano, Jeffrey M., Neill, Rebecca A., Newsome, Janice, Padua, Horacio, Schoenfeld, Alan H., and Miller, Donald L.

Abstract

Purpose: To update normative data on fluoroscopy dose indices in the United States for the first time since the RAD-IR study in the late 1990s.Materials and Methods: The DIR-Fluoro pilot collected data from March 2018 through December 2019, with 50 fluoroscopes from 10 sites submitting data. Primary radiation dose indices including fluoroscopy time (FT), cumulative air kerma (Ka,r), and kerma area product (PKA) were collected for interventional radiology fluoroscopically-guided interventional (FGI) procedures. Clinical facility procedure names were mapped to the ACR Common procedure lexicon. Distribution parameters including the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 95th, and 99th percentiles were computed.Results: Dose indices were collected for 70,377 FGI, with 50,501 ultimately eligible for analysis. Distribution parameters are reported for 100 ACR Common IDs. FT in minutes, Ka,r in mGy, and PKA in Gy-cm2 are reported here as (N; median [interquartile range]) for select ACR Common IDs: IVC filter insertion (1726; FT: 2.9 [1.8-4.3]; Ka,r: 55.8 [27.7-117.6]; PKA: 14.19 [7.17-31.67]); IVC filter removal (464; FT: 5.7 [3.3-12.6]; Ka,r: 178.6 [72.2-430.3]; PKA: 34.73 [13.74-85.81]); nephrostomy placement (2037; FT: 4.1 [2.0-8.6]; Ka,r: 39.2 [13.4-122.7]; PKA: 6.61 [2.24-23.65]); percutaneous biliary drainage (952; FT: 12.4 [4.8-24.5]; Ka,r: 160.5 [43.2-446.8]; PKA: 21.32 [6.79-65.95]); gastrostomy placement (1643; FT: 3.2 [2.0-5.0]; Ka,r: 29.1 [13.2-67.1]; PKA: 7.29 [2.97-18.01]); TIPS placement (327; FT: 34.8 [23.2-53.3]; Ka,r: 813.0 [355.5-1490.8]; PKA: 181.47 [87.71-407.49]).Conclusions: The ACR DIR-Fluoro pilot has provided state of the practice statistics for radiation dose indices from IR FGI procedures. These data can be used to prioritize procedures for radiation optimization, as demonstrated in this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Image quality evaluation of ultrasound imaging systems: advanced B-modes

Author

Calum Crake, Mi-Ae Park, Andrea Scorza, Don Soo Kim, Elisabetta Sassaroli, Sassaroli, Elisabetta, Crake, Calum, Scorza, Andrea, Kim, Don-Soo, and Park, Mi-Ae

Subjects
Scanner, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Image quality, Computer science, ultrasound imaging quality assurance, Second-harmonic imaging microscopy, Signal-To-Noise Ratio, Grayscale, Doppler imaging, 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging, 03 medical and health sciences, Medical Imaging, 0302 clinical medicine, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Computer vision, Image resolution, Instrumentation, Ultrasonography, 87.63.dh Ultrasonographic imaging, tissue aberration correction, Radiation, Phantoms, Imaging, business.industry, Ultrasound, B mode, harmonic imaging, speed of sound correction, adaptive speckle reduction, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, compound imaging, Artificial intelligence, business, Quality assurance, Algorithms
Abstract

The Quality assurance of ultrasound clinical imaging systems is essential for maintaining their performance to the highest level and for complying with the requirements by various regulatory and accrediting agencies. Although there is no standardization yet, most of the quality assessment procedures available in literature are proposed for B‐mode and Doppler imaging. However, ultrasound imaging systems offer a variety of advanced imaging modes, besides B‐mode and Doppler, which are primarily aimed at improving image quality. This study presents computer‐based methods for evaluating image quality for the advanced imaging modes of ultrasound imaging systems: harmonic imaging, spatial compounding imaging, adaptive speckle reduction, and tissue aberration correction. The functions and parameters proposed for evaluating image quality are: grayscale mapping function, image contrast, contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), and high‐contrast spatial resolution. We present our computer‐based methods for evaluating image quality of these modes with a number of probe and scanner combinations, which were employed to image targets in ultrasound phantoms. The functions and parameters here proposed in image quality performance evaluation are: grayscale mapping function, image contrast, CNR, and high‐contrast spatial resolution. We show that these quantities could be useful in developing standardized methods for evaluating the advanced ultrasound imaging modes, especially when the advanced mode resulted in subtle visual differences.

Published
2019

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results