Radiography Image Failure Detection With Correction Guidance

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing radiography systems face inefficiencies due to imaging failures caused by patient positioning errors, movement, insufficient breathing, or incorrect imaging settings, leading to unnecessary re-examinations and increased radiation exposure.

Innovation Solution

A radiography apparatus and system that utilize a processor to analyze radiographic images using a trained model to determine imaging failures, provide correction information, and reduce re-imaging operations by displaying imaging failure reasons and advice for correction.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If imaging is performed using conventional methods without automated failure detection, then the imaging process is simple and quick, but imaging failures occur frequently leading to unnecessary re-examinations and increased radiation exposure

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveimaging qualityVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary analysis of the radiographic image immediately after capture to detect imaging failures before the image is used for diagnosis. The processor analyzes image quality metrics such as sharpness, noise level, and anatomical structure visibility to predict whether the image is suitable for diagnosis, preventing unnecessary re-examinations

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

An automated image analysis system acts as an intermediary between the imaging process and the radiologist. The processor serves as a mediator that objectively evaluates image quality and provides feedback, reducing the subjectivity and variability in failure detection between different radiologists

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Reliability

If re-imaging is performed after imaging failure determination, then a suitable radiographic image can be obtained, but the number of examinations increases and radiation exposure increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvediagnostic accuracyVSAvoidradiation exposure

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements a feedback mechanism where the processor analyzes the captured image and provides immediate feedback on image quality. If the image meets quality criteria, the system confirms success; if not, it provides specific guidance for correction before re-imaging, reducing unnecessary repeat exposures

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs partial re-imaging by identifying specific regions or parameters that need correction rather than requiring complete re-imaging. The processor can determine that only certain aspects of the image are inadequate and guide targeted corrections, reducing overall radiation exposure

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Productivity

If imaging failure determination is based on predetermined criteria, then unnecessary imaging failures are reduced, but the determination process becomes more complex

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoperational efficiencyVSAvoidanalysis complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The image analysis process is segmented into multiple independent evaluation modules: sharpness assessment, noise level detection, anatomical structure visibility analysis, and positioning accuracy evaluation. Each module independently assesses specific image quality parameters and combines results to determine overall image suitability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses multiple image quality parameters including sharpness metrics, noise levels, contrast ratios, and anatomical landmark detection to comprehensively evaluate image quality. By monitoring changes in these parameters, the system can objectively determine imaging failure without complex subjective judgment

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

4Reliability

If correction information is provided for imaging failures, then re-imaging success rate improves, but the information processing requirement increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvere-imaging successVSAvoiddata processing load

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The system extracts only the essential and most relevant correction information from the full image analysis results. Instead of providing all possible feedback, the processor identifies and presents only the critical issues that need correction, such as positioning errors or exposure problems, reducing information overload while maintaining re-imaging success

Inventive Principle:

Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Data Source

PatentUS12456188B2Radiography apparatus and radiography system

Publication Date: 2025.10.28 FUJIFILM CORP

AI summary

The radiography apparatus includes a radiation source that generates radiation, a radiography unit, a display, and a processor. The processor images an object using radiation, analyzes a radiographic image to determine the radiographic image, whose capture is determined to have failed, to be a failure and to decide an imaging failure reason, which is a reason for the determination, and correction information for eliminating the imaging failure reason, and displays the correction information on the display. The radiography system includes the radiography apparatus.