Dear X-Ray Imaging Insider,
Earlier this year, an AuntMinnie.com feature story discussed how, when making the move toward digitization, many facilities are still going with computed radiography (CR) rather than leaping directly to digital radiography (DR).
Why take what looks like an interim step? Because adopting CR is a relatively easy means to capture some of the benefits of digitization without the overall overhaul demanded by DR.
But a new study presented earlier this month at the 2004 RSNA meeting in Chicago reminds us that DR's superior image quality may have clinical implications. The researchers also found some differences in performance among the seven DR systems they tested. You can read our coverage of this presentation in this month's X-Ray Insider Exclusive.
As always, I welcome your feedback on the stories we've run in our X-Ray Digital Community, and your suggestions for topics we ought to tackle. I also wish you all the best for the holiday season and 2005.
![Representative example of a 16-year-old male patient with underlying X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy. (A, B) Paired anteroposterior (AP) chest radiograph and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) report shows lumbar spine (L1 through L4) areal bone mineral density (BMD). The DXA report was reformatted for anonymization and improved readability. The patient had low BMD (Z score ≤ −2.0). (C) Model (chest radiography [CXR]–BMD) output shows the predicted raw BMD and Z score in comparison with the DXA reference standard, together with interpretability analyses using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) and gradient-weighted class activation maps. The patient was classified as having low BMD, consistent with the reference standard. AM = age-matched, DEXA = dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, RM2 = room 2, SNUH = Seoul National University Hospital, YA = young adult.](https://img.auntminnie.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/04/ai-children-bone-density.0snnf2EJjr.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&dpr=2&fit=crop&h=167&q=70&w=250)
