Literature DB >> 16675862

A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.

N W Marshall1.   

Abstract

This paper presents pre-sampling modulation transfer function (MTF), normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) results for an amorphous selenium (a-Se) full field digital mammography system. MTF was calculated from the image of an angled 0.5 mm thick Cu edge, acquired without additional beam filtration. NNPS data were acquired at detector air-kerma levels ranging from 9.1 microGy to 331 microGy, using a standard mammography x-ray spectrum of 28 kV, Mo/Mo target/filter combination and 4 cm of PMMA additional filtration. Prior to NNPS estimation, the image statistics were assessed using a variance image. This method was able to easily identify a detector artefact and should prove useful in routine quality assurance (QA) measurements. Detector DQE, calculated from the NNPS and MTF data, dropped to 0.3 for low detector air-kerma settings but reached an approximately constant value of 0.6 above 50 microGy at the detector. Subjective image quality data were also obtained at these detector air-kerma settings using the CDMAM contrast-detail (c-d) test object. The c-d data reflected the trend seen in DQE, with threshold contrast increasing at low detector air-kerma values. The c-d data were then compared against predictions made using two established models, the Rose model and a standard signal detection theory model. Using DQE(0), the Rose model gave results within approximately 15% on average for all the detector air-kerma values studied and for detail diameters down to 0.2 mm. Similar agreement was also found between the measured c-d data and the signal detection theory results, which were calculated using an ideal human visual response function and a system magnification of unity. The use of full spatial frequency DQE improved the agreement between the calculated and observer results for detail sizes below 0.13 mm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16675862     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  4 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Application of QC_DR software for acceptance testing and routine quality control of direct digital radiography systems: initial experiences using the Italian Association of Physicist in Medicine quality control protocol.

Authors:  Andrea Nitrosi; Marco Bertolini; Giovanni Borasi; Andrea Botti; Adriana Barani; Stefano Rivetti; Luisa Pierotti
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Detectability comparison between a high energy x-ray phase sensitive and mammography systems in imaging phantoms with varying glandular-adipose ratios.

Authors:  Muhammad U Ghani; Molly D Wong; Di Wu; Bin Zheng; Laurie L Fajardo; Aimin Yan; Janis Fuh; Xizeng Wu; Hong Liu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide.

Authors:  Cláudia Reis; Ana Pascoal; Taxiarchis Sakellaris; Manthos Koutalonis
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2013-08-04
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.