Literature DB >> 16142436

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

Elizabeth A Krupinski1, Hans Roehrig, William Dallas, Jiahua Fan.   

Abstract

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) systems are currently being used to acquire mammograms in digital format, but digital displays are less than ideal compared to traditional film-screen display. Certain physical properties of softcopy displays [e.g., modulation transfer function (MTF)] are less than optimal compared to film. We developed methods to compensate for some of these softcopy display deficiencies, based on careful physical characterization of the displays and image-processing software. A series of 100 FFDM and 60 digitized images was shown to six observers-half experienced (mammographers) and half inexperienced (radiology residents). The observers had to decide if a mass or microcalcification cluster was present and classify it as benign or malignant. A window could be activated that brought the image detail within the window to full resolution and corrected for the nonisotropic MTF of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) display. Experienced readers had better diagnostic performance and took less time to view the images. Experienced readers used window/level more than inexperienced readers, but inexperienced readers used magnification and the MTF compensation tool more often. Use of the magnification and the MTF tool increased reader decision confidence. Experienced and inexperienced readers use image-processing tools differently, with certain tools increasing reader confidence. Understanding how observers use image-processing tools may help in the development of better and more automated user interfaces.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16142436      PMCID: PMC3046729          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-005-7666-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  17 in total

1.  A perceptually tempered display for digital mammograms.

Authors:  H L Kundel; S P Weinstein; E F Conant; L C Toto; C F Nodine
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 2.  Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay.

Authors:  E D Pisano; 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
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.333

3.  Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography.

Authors:  Silvia Obenauer; Klaus-Peter Hermann; Katharina Marten; Susanne Luftner-Nagel; Dorit von Heyden; Per Skaane; Eckhardt Grabbe
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2004-01-30       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  A digital equalisation technique improving visualisation of dense mammary gland and breast periphery in mammography.

Authors:  Antonis P Stefanoyiannis; Lena Costaridou; Spyros Skiadopoulos; George Panayiotakis
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

6.  Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of MTF compensation.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Jeffrey Johnson; Hans Roehrig; Michael Engstrom; Jiahua Fan; John Nafziger; Jeffrey Lubin; William J Dallas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Improved interpretation of digitized mammography with wavelet processing: a localization response operating characteristic study.

Authors:  Maria Kallergi; John J Heine; Claudia G Berman; Marla R Hersh; A Pat Romilly; Robert A Clark
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Use of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Jeffrey Johnson; Hans Roehrig; John Nafziger; Jiahua Fan; Jeffery Lubin
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Visual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms.

Authors:  E A Krupinski
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.

Authors:  Elodia Cole; Etta D Pisano; Mary Brown; Cherie Kuzmiak; M Patricia Braeuning; Hak Hee Kim; Roberta Jong; Ruth Walsh
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  4 in total

1.  Assessment of using digital manipulation tools for diagnosing mandibular radiolucent lesions.

Authors:  R Raitz; J N R Assunção Junior; M Fenyo-Pereira; L Correa; L P de Lima
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Human-computer interaction in radiotherapy target volume delineation: a prospective, multi-institutional comparison of user input devices.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Thick slices from tomosynthesis data sets: phantom study for the evaluation of different algorithms.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Henning Meyer; Susanne Diekmann; Sylvie Puong; Serge Muller; Ulrich Bick; Patrik Rogalla
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.

Authors:  Mark B Williams; Priya Raghunathan; Mitali J More; J Anthony Seibert; Alexander Kwan; Joseph Y Lo; Ehsan Samei; Nicole T Ranger; Laurie L Fajardo; Allen McGruder; Sandra M McGruder; Andrew D A Maidment; Martin J Yaffe; Aili Bloomquist; Gordon E Mawdsley
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.071

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.