Literature DB >> 15480692

Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges.

A Noel1, F Thibault.   

Abstract

This paper reviews the different techniques available and competing for full-field digital mammography. The detectors are described in their principles: photostimulable storage phosphor plates inserted as a cassette in a conventional mammography unit, dedicated active matrix detectors (i.e., flat-panel, thin-film transistor-based detectors) and scanning systems, using indirect and direct X-ray conversion. The main parameters that characterize the performances of the current systems and influence the quality of digital images are briefly explained: spatial resolution, detective quantum efficiency and modulation transfer function. Overall performances are often the result of compromises in the choice of technology.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15480692     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2446-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  25 in total

1.  Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system.

Authors:  S Muller
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study.

Authors:  R Sivaramakrishna; N A Obuchowski; W A Chilcote; G Cardenosa; K A Powell
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  The x-ray sensitivity of amorphous selenium for mammography.

Authors:  Mary F Stone; Wei Zhao; Barbara V Jacak; Paul O'Connor; Bo Yu; Pavel Rehak
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A CdZnTe slot-scanned detector for digital mammography.

Authors:  James G Mainprize; Nancy L Ford; Shi Yin; Eli E Gordon; William J Hamilton; Tümay O Tümer; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Aliasing effects in digital images of line-pair phantoms.

Authors:  Michael Albert; Daniel J Beideck; Predrag R Bakic; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  Direct digital mammography image acquisition.

Authors:  A R Cowen; G J Parkin; P Hawkridge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  X-ray detectors for digital radiography.

Authors:  M J Yaffe; J A Rowlands
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: optimal spectra for digital mammography.

Authors:  R Fahrig; J A Rowlands; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography.

Authors:  S A Feig; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  Effects of undersampling on the proper interpretation of modulation transfer function, noise power spectra, and noise equivalent quanta of digital imaging systems.

Authors:  J T Dobbins
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  12 in total

1.  Flat detectors and their clinical applications.

Authors:  Martin Spahn
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-04-02       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Digital mammography: current state and future aspects.

Authors:  U Fischer; K P Hermann; F Baum
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-20       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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

Review 4.  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

5.  Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications.

Authors:  Mari Yakabe; Shuji Sakai; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Yoshio Matsuo; Takeshi Kamitani; Taro Setoguchi; Mayumi Cho; Masafumi Masuda; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance.

Authors:  Antonius A J Roelofs; Sander van Woudenberg; Johannes D M Otten; Jan H C L Hendriks; Anke Bödicker; Carl J G Evertsz; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-25       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Comparison of standard mammography with digital mammography and digital infrared thermal imaging for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Nermin Köşüş; Aydın Köşüş; Müzeyyen Duran; Serap Simavlı; Nilgün Turhan
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2010-09-01

8.  Investigation of viewing procedures for interpretation of breast tomosynthesis image volumes: a detection-task study with eye tracking.

Authors:  Pontus Timberg; Kristina Lång; Marcus Nyström; Kenneth Holmqvist; Philippe Wagner; Daniel Förnvik; Anders Tingberg; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-10-20       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Cosimo di Maggio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-30       Impact factor: 7.034

10.  Intracranial 2D and 3D DSA with flat panel detector of the direct conversion type: initial experience.

Authors:  Yoshihisa Hatakeyama; Shingo Kakeda; Yukunori Korogi; Norihiro Ohnari; Junji Moriya; Nobuhiro Oda; Kazuyoshi Nishino; Wataru Miyamoto
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-18       Impact factor: 7.034

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.