Literature DB >> 17985642

Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance.

Robert S Saunders1, Jay A Baker, David M Delong, Jeff P Johnson, Ehsan Samei.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of different resolution and noise levels on task performance in digital mammography. This study created an image set with images at three different resolution levels, corresponding to three digital display devices, and three different noise levels, with noise magnitudes similar to full clinical dose, half clinical dose, and quarter clinical dose. The images were read by five experienced breast imaging radiologists. The data were then analyzed to compute two accuracy statistics (overall classification accuracy and lesion detection accuracy) and performance at four diagnostic tasks (detection of microcalcifications, benign masses, malignant masses, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses). Human observer results showed decreasing display resolution had little effect on overall classification accuracy and individual diagnostic task performance, but increasing noise caused overall classification accuracy to decrease by a statistically significant 21% as the breast dose went to one quarter of its normal clinical value. The noise effects were most prominent for the tasks of microcalcification detection and mass discrimination. When the noise changed from full clinical dose to quarter clinical dose, the microcalcification detection performance fell from 89% to 67% and the mass discrimination performance decreased from 93% to 79%, while malignant mass detection performance remained relatively constant with values of 88% and 84%, respectively. As a secondary aim, the image set was also analyzed by two observer models to examine whether their performance was similar to humans. Observer models differed from human observers and each other in their sensitivity to resolution degradation and noise. The primary conclusions of this study suggest that quantum noise appears to be the dominant image quality factor in digital mammography, affecting radiologist performance much more profoundly than display resolution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17985642     DOI: 10.1118/1.2776253

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  13 in total

1.  Comparison of model and human observer performance for detection and discrimination tasks using dual-energy x-ray images.

Authors:  Samuel Richard; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  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

3.  What is the minimum amount of simulated breast movement required for visual detection of blurring? An exploratory investigation.

Authors:  W K Ma; R Aspin; J Kelly; S Millington; P Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Mammographic image denoising and enhancement using the Anscombe transformation, adaptive wiener filtering, and the modulation transfer function.

Authors:  Larissa C S Romualdo; Marcelo A C Vieira; Homero Schiabel; Nelson D A Mascarenhas; Lucas R Borges
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Predicting Detection Performance on Security X-Ray Images as a Function of Image Quality.

Authors:  Praful Gupta; Zeina Sinno; Jack L Glover; Nicholas G Paulter; Alan C Bovik
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 10.856

6.  Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Association between time spent interpreting, level of confidence, and accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; T Andrew Bogart; Berta M Geller; Sebastian Haneuse; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Robert Smith; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Tracy Onega; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  Current perspectives in medical image perception.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 9.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Julie Cooke; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.685

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.