Literature DB >> 11394537

Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.

H P Chan1, M A Helvie, N Petrick, B Sahiner, D D Adler, C Paramagul, M A Roubidoux, C E Blane, L K Joynt, T E Wilson, L M Hadjiiski, M M Goodsitt.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to evaluate the effects of pixel size on the characterization of mammographic microcalcifications by radiologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two-view mammograms of 112 microcalcification clusters were digitized with a laser scanner at a pixel size of 35 microm. Images with pixel sizes of 70, 105, and 140 microm were derived from the 35-microm-pixel size images by averaging neighboring pixels. The malignancy or benignity of the microcalcifications had been determined with findings at biopsy or 2-year follow-up. Region-of-interest images containing the microcalcifications were printed with a laser imager. Seven radiologists participated in a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study to estimate the likelihood of malignancy. The classification accuracy was quantified with the area under the ROC curve (Az). The statistical significance of the differences in the Az values for different pixel sizes was estimated with the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method and the Student paired t test. The variance components were analyzed with a bootstrap method.
RESULTS: The higher-resolution images did not result in better classification; the average Az with a pixel size of 35 microm was lower than that with pixel sizes of 70 and 105 microm. The differences in Az between different pixel sizes did not achieve statistical significance.
CONCLUSION: Pixel sizes in the range studied do not have a strong effect on radiologists' accuracy in the characterization of microcalcifications. The low specificity of the image features of microcalcifications and the large interobserver and intraobserver variabilities may have prevented small advantages in image resolution from being observed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11394537     DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80616-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of semiparametric receiver operating characteristic models on observer data.

Authors:  Frank W Samuelson; Xin He
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-08-28

2.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.

Authors:  Wei T Yang; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William A Murphy; Mark J Dryden; Anne C Kushwaha; Aysegul A Sahin; Dennis Johnston; Peter J Dempsey; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Generalized Roe and Metz receiver operating characteristic model: analytic link between simulated decision scores and empirical AUC variances and covariances.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-09-25

5.  The average receiver operating characteristic curve in multireader multicase imaging studies.

Authors:  W Chen; F W Samuelson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Soft copy digital mammography.

Authors:  Hak Hee Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2005 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.