Literature DB >> 10992035

Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay.

E D Pisano1, E B Cole, B M Hemminger, M J Yaffe, S R Aylward, A D Maidment, R E Johnston, M B Williams, L T Niklason, E F Conant, L L Fajardo, D B Kopans, M E Brown, S M Pizer.   

Abstract

Digital mammography systems allow manipulation of fine differences in image contrast by means of image processing algorithms. Different display algorithms have advantages and disadvantages for the specific tasks required in breast imaging-diagnosis and screening. Manual intensity windowing can produce digital mammograms very similar to standard screen-film mammograms but is limited by its operator dependence. Histogram-based intensity windowing improves the conspicuity of the lesion edge, but there is loss of detail outside the dense parts of the image. Mixture-model intensity windowing enhances the visibility of lesion borders against the fatty background, but the mixed parenchymal densities abutting the lesion may be lost. Contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization can also provide subtle edge information but might degrade performance in the screening setting by enhancing the visibility of nuisance information. Unsharp masking enhances the sharpness of the borders of mass lesions, but this algorithm may make even an indistinct mass appear more circumscribed. Peripheral equalization displays lesion details well and preserves the peripheral information in the surrounding breast, but there may be flattening of image contrast in the nonperipheral portions of the image. Trex processing allows visualization of both lesion detail and breast edge information but reduces image contrast.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10992035     DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.20.5.g00se311479

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  20 in total

1.  Soft copy display requirements for digital mammography.

Authors:  Bradley M Hemminger
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Evaluating the effect of a wavelet enhancement method in characterization of simulated lesions embedded in dense breast parenchyma.

Authors:  L Costaridou; S Skiadopoulos; P Sakellaropoulos; E Likaki; C P Kalogeropoulou; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-02-09       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Hans Roehrig; William Dallas; Jiahua Fan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Margarita Zuley; Janet K Baum; Helga S Marques
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  C Van Ongeval; H Bosmans; A Van Steen; K Joossens; V Celis; M Van Goethem; I Verslegers; K Nijs; F Rogge; G Marchal
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-02       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Robert M Nishikawa; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Constantine Gatsonis; Etta D Pisano; Elodia B Cole; Helga S Marques; Carl J D'Orsi; Dione M Farria; Kalpana M Kanal; Mary C Mahoney; Murray Rebner; Melinda J Staiger
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Medical display application for degraded image sharpness restoration based on the modulation transfer function: initial assessment for a five-megapixel mammography display monitor.

Authors:  Shogo Tokurei; Yoichiro Ikushima; Kazuki Takegami; Munemasa Okada; Junji Morishita
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2021-05-17

8.  ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography.

Authors:  Kalpana M Kanal; Elizabeth Krupinski; Eric A Berns; William R Geiser; Andrew Karellas; Martha B Mainiero; Melissa C Martin; Samir B Patel; Daniel L Rubin; Jon D Shepard; Eliot L Siegel; Judith A Wolfman; Tariq A Mian; Mary C Mahoney
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Non-Gaussian statistical properties of breast images.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Anita Nosrateih; Jascha Sohl-Dickstein; Kai Yang; John M Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.

Authors:  F Zanca; C Van Ongeval; F Claus; J Jacobs; R Oyen; H Bosmans
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.