[caycep]

I assume something like jpeg (used in the DICOM standard today) has more eyes on the code than proprietary Xerox stuff? hopefully at least...

I have seen weird artifacts on MRI scans, specifically the FLAIR image enhancement algorithm used on T2 images, i.e. white spots, which could in theory be interpreted by a radiology as small strokes or MS...so I always take what I see with a grain of salt..

[ska]

The DICOM standard stuff did have a lot of eyes on it, and was tuned toward fidelity which helps. It's not perfect, but what is.

MRI artifacts though are a whole can of worms, but fundamentally most of them come from a combination of the EM physics involved, and the reconstruction algorithm needed to produce an image from the frequency data.

I'm not sure what you mean by "image enhancement algorithm"; FLAIR is a pulse sequence used to suppress certain fluid signals, typically used in spine and brain.

Many of the bright spots you see in FLAIR are due to B1 inhomogeneity, iirc (it's been a while though)

[ska]

Probably worth mentioning also that "used in DICOM standard" is true but possibly misleading to someone unfamiliar with it.

DICOM is a vast standard. In it's many crevasses, it contains wire and file encoding schemas, some of which include (many different) image data types, some of which allow (multiple) compression schemes, both lossy and lossless, as well as metadata schemes. These include JPEG, JPEG-LS, JPEG-2000, MPEG2/4, HVEC.

I think you have to encode the compression ratio as well, if you do lossy compression. You definitely have to note that you did lossy compression.

[jahewson]

The xerox problem wasn’t an issue with the standard, it was a bug in the code.