Literature DB >> 28134567

Blurred digital mammography images: an analysis of technical recall and observer detection performance.

Wang Kei Ma1, Rita Borgen2, Judith Kelly3, Sara Millington3, Beverley Hilton2, Rob Aspin4, Carla Lança5,6, Peter Hogg1,7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Blurred images in full-field digital mammography are a problem in the UK Breast Screening Programme. Technical recalls may be due to blurring not being seen on lower resolution monitors used for review. This study assesses the visual detection of blurring on a 2.3-MP monitor and a 5-MP report grade monitor and proposes an observer standard for the visual detection of blurring on a 5-MP reporting grade monitor.
METHODS: 28 observers assessed 120 images for blurring; 20 images had no blurring present, whereas 100 images had blurring imposed through mathematical simulation at 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 mm levels of motion. Technical recall rate for both monitors and angular size at each level of motion were calculated. χ2 tests were used to test whether significant differences in blurring detection existed between 2.3- and 5-MP monitors.
RESULTS: The technical recall rate for 2.3- and 5-MP monitors are 20.3% and 9.1%, respectively. The angular size for 0.2- to 1-mm motion varied from 55 to 275 arc s. The minimum amount of motion for visual detection of blurring in this study is 0.4 mm. For 0.2-mm simulated motion, there was no significant difference [χ2 (1, N = 1095) = 1.61, p = 0.20] in blurring detection between the 2.3- and 5-MP monitors.
CONCLUSION: According to this study, monitors ≤2.3 MP are not suitable for technical review of full-field digital mammography images for the detection of blur. Advances in knowledge: This research proposes the first observer standard for the visual detection of blurring.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28134567      PMCID: PMC5601529          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  14 in total

1.  Analysis of motion during the breast clamping phase of mammography.

Authors:  Wang Kei Ma; Mark F McEntee; Claire Mercer; Judith Kelly; Sara Millington; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Visual ergonomics in the workplace.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Anshel
Journal:  AAOHN J       Date:  2007-10

3.  Vision and quality in the digital imaging environment: how much does the visual acuity of radiologists vary at an intermediate distance?

Authors:  Nabile M Safdar; Khan M Siddiqui; Farah Qureshi; Muhammad Kashif Mirza; Nancy Knight; Paul Nagy; Eliot Siegel
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Observer study for evaluating potential utility of a super-high-resolution LCD in the detection of clustered microcalcifications on digital mammograms.

Authors:  Junji Shiraishi; Hiroyuki Abe; Katsuhiro Ichikawa; Robert A Schmidt; Kunio Doi
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Interrater variation in scoring radiological discrepancies.

Authors:  B Mucci; H Murray; A Downie; K Osborne
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  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

7.  Accurate localization of incidental findings on the computed tomography attenuation correction image: the influence of tube current variation.

Authors:  John Thompson; Peter Hogg; Samantha Higham; David Manning
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.690

Review 8.  Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography.

Authors:  Gordon E Legge; Charles A Bigelow
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Diagnostic performance in differentiation of breast lesion on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel LCD monitor, and 5-megapixel LCD monitor.

Authors:  Takeshi Kamitani; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Yoshio Matsuo; Taro Setoguchi; Shuji Sakai; Takashi Okafuji; Shunya Sunami; Masamitsu Hatakenaka; Nobuhide Ishii; Makoto Kubo; Eriko Tokunaga; Hidetaka Yamamoto; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.605

10.  Effect of reconstruction methods and x-ray tube current-time product on nodule detection in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom: A crossed-modality JAFROC observer study.

Authors:  J D Thompson; D P Chakraborty; K Szczepura; A K Tootell; I Vamvakas; D J Manning; P Hogg
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  2 in total

1.  Deep learning versus the human visual system for detecting motion blur in radiography.

Authors:  Rie Tanaka; Shiho Nozaki; Futa Goshima; Junji Shiraishi
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-01-18

2.  In silico imaging clinical trials: cheaper, faster, better, safer, and more scalable.

Authors:  Aldo Badano
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 2.279

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.