Ahmed K Abdullah1,2, Judith Kelly3, John D Thompson2, Claire E Mercer2, Rob Aspin4, Peter Hogg2,5. 1. 1 University of Diyala, Baqubah, Diyala, Iraq. 2. 2 Directorate of Radiography, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK. 3. 4 Chester Breast Imaging Unit, Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chester, UK. 4. 3 School of Computing, Science and Engineering, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK. 5. 5 Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Motion blur is a known phenomenon in full-field digital mammography, but the impact on lesion detection is unknown. This is the first study to investigate detection performance with varying magnitudes of simulated motion blur. METHODS: 7 observers (15 ± 5 years' reporting experience) evaluated 248 cases (62 containing malignant masses, 62 containing malignant microcalcifications and 124 normal cases) for 3 conditions: no blurring (0 mm) and 2 magnitudes of simulated blurring (0.7 and 1.5 mm). Abnormal cases were biopsy proven. Mathematical simulation was used to provide a pixel shift in order to simulate motion blur. A free-response observer study was conducted to compare lesion detection performance for the three conditions. The equally weighted jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic was used as the figure of merit. Test alpha was set at 0.05 to control probability of Type I error. RESULTS: The equally weighted jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis found a statistically significant difference in lesion detection performance for both masses [F(2,22) = 6.01, p = 0.0084] and microcalcifications [F(2,49) = 23.14, p < 0.0001]. The figures of merit reduced as the magnitude of simulated blurring increased. Statistical differences were found between some of the pairs investigated for the detection of masses (0.0 vs 0.7 and 0.0 vs 1.5 mm) and all pairs for microcalcifications (0.0 vs 0.7, 0.0 vs 1.5 and 0.7 vs 1.5 mm). No difference was detected between 0.7 and 1.5 mm for masses. CONCLUSION: The mathematical simulation of motion blur caused a statistically significant reduction in lesion detection performance. These false-negative decisions could have implications for clinical practice. Advances in knowledge: This research demonstrates for the first time that motion blur has a negative and statistically significant impact on lesion detection performance in digital mammography.
OBJECTIVE: Motion blur is a known phenomenon in full-field digital mammography, but the impact on lesion detection is unknown. This is the first study to investigate detection performance with varying magnitudes of simulated motion blur. METHODS: 7 observers (15 ± 5 years' reporting experience) evaluated 248 cases (62 containing malignant masses, 62 containing malignant microcalcifications and 124 normal cases) for 3 conditions: no blurring (0 mm) and 2 magnitudes of simulated blurring (0.7 and 1.5 mm). Abnormal cases were biopsy proven. Mathematical simulation was used to provide a pixel shift in order to simulate motion blur. A free-response observer study was conducted to compare lesion detection performance for the three conditions. The equally weighted jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic was used as the figure of merit. Test alpha was set at 0.05 to control probability of Type I error. RESULTS: The equally weighted jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis found a statistically significant difference in lesion detection performance for both masses [F(2,22) = 6.01, p = 0.0084] and microcalcifications [F(2,49) = 23.14, p < 0.0001]. The figures of merit reduced as the magnitude of simulated blurring increased. Statistical differences were found between some of the pairs investigated for the detection of masses (0.0 vs 0.7 and 0.0 vs 1.5 mm) and all pairs for microcalcifications (0.0 vs 0.7, 0.0 vs 1.5 and 0.7 vs 1.5 mm). No difference was detected between 0.7 and 1.5 mm for masses. CONCLUSION: The mathematical simulation of motion blur caused a statistically significant reduction in lesion detection performance. These false-negative decisions could have implications for clinical practice. Advances in knowledge: This research demonstrates for the first time that motion blur has a negative and statistically significant impact on lesion detection performance in digital 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
Authors: Marion Geerligs; Gerrit W M Peters; Paul A J Ackermans; Cees W J Oomens; Frank P T Baaijens Journal: J Biomech Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Mark Knox; Angela O'Brien; Endre Szabó; Clare S Smith; Helen M Fenlon; Michelle M McNicholas; Fidelma L Flanagan Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Niamh M Hambly; Michelle M McNicholas; Niall Phelan; Gormlaith C Hargaden; Ann O'Doherty; Fidelma L Flanagan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Joana Boita; Ruben E van Engen; Alistair Mackenzie; Anders Tingberg; Hilde Bosmans; Anetta Bolejko; Sophia Zackrisson; Matthew G Wallis; Debra M Ikeda; Chantal Van Ongeval; Ruud Pijnappel; Mireille Broeders; Ioannis Sechopoulos Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Taro Makino; Stanisław Jastrzębski; Witold Oleszkiewicz; Celin Chacko; Robin Ehrenpreis; Naziya Samreen; Chloe Chhor; Eric Kim; Jiyon Lee; Kristine Pysarenko; Beatriu Reig; Hildegard Toth; Divya Awal; Linda Du; Alice Kim; James Park; Daniel K Sodickson; Laura Heacock; Linda Moy; Kyunghyun Cho; Krzysztof J Geras Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 4.996