On the noise variance of a digital mammography system.

A recent paper by Cooper et al. [Med. Phys. 30, 2614-2621 (2003)] contains some apparently anomalous results concerning the relationship between pixel variance and x-ray exposure for a digital mammography system. They found an unexpected peak in a display domain pixel variance plot as a function of 1/mAs (their Fig. 5) with a decrease in the range corresponding to high display data values, corresponding to low x-ray exposures. As they pointed out, if the detector response is linear in exposure and the transformation from raw to display data scales is logarithmic, then pixel variance should be a monotonically increasing function in the figure. They concluded that the total system transfer curve, between input exposure and display image data values, is not logarithmic over the full exposure range. They separated data analysis into two regions and plotted the logarithm of display image pixel variance as a function of the logarithm of the mAs used to produce the phantom images. They found a slope of minus one for high mAs values and concluded that the transfer function is logarithmic in this region. They found a slope of 0.6 for the low mAs region and concluded that the transfer curve was neither linear nor logarithmic for low exposure values. It is known that the digital mammography system investigated by Cooper et al. has a linear relationship between exposure and raw data values [Vedantham et al., Med. Phys. 27, 558-567 (2000)]. The purpose of this paper is to show that the variance effect found by Cooper et al. (their Fig. 5) arises because the transformation from the raw data scale (14 bits) to the display scale (12 bits), for the digital mammography system they investigated, is not logarithmic for raw data values less than about 300 (display data values greater than about 3300). At low raw data values the transformation is linear and prevents over-ranging of the display data scale. Parametric models for the two transformations will be presented. Results of pixel variance measurements made on raw data images will be presented. The experimental data are in good agreement with those of Cooper et al. It will be shown that the slope of 0.6 found by Cooper et al. for the log-log plot at low exposure is not due to transfer function nonlinearity, it occurs because of an additive variance term-possibly due to electronic noise. It will also be shown, using population statistics from clinical images, that raw data values below 300 are rare in tissue areas. Those tissue areas with very low raw data values are within about a millimeter of the chest wall or in very dense muscle at comers of images.