Literature DB >> 3623862

Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications.

H P Chan, C J Vyborny, H MacMahon, C E Metz, K Doi, E A Sickles.   

Abstract

We investigated the spatial resolution requirement and the effect of unsharp-mask filtering on the detectability of subtle microcalcifications in digital mammography. Digital images were obtained by digitizing conventional screen-film mammograms with a 0.1 X 0.1 mm2 pixel size, processed with unsharp masking, and then reconstituted on film with a Fuji image processing/simulation system (Fuji Photo Film Co., Tokyo, Japan). Twenty normal cases and 12 cases with subtle microcalcifications were included. Observer performance experiments were conducted to assess the detectability of subtle microcalcifications in the conventional, the unprocessed digital, and the unsharp-masked mammograms. The observer response data were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and LROC (ROC with localization) analyses. Our results indicate that digital mammograms obtained with 0.1 X 0.1 mm2 pixels provide lower detectability than the conventional screen-film mammograms. The detectability of microcalcifications in the digital mammograms is improved by unsharp-mask filtering; the processed mammograms still provide lower accuracy than the conventional mammograms, however, chiefly because of increased false-positive detection rates for the processed images at each subjective confidence level. Viewing unprocessed digital and unsharp-masked images in pairs resulted in approximately the same detectability as that obtained with the unsharp-masked images alone. However, this result may be influenced by the fact that the same limited viewing time was necessarily divided between the two images.

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3623862

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  11 in total

Review 1.  Literature review: picture archiving and communication system.

Authors:  U P Schmiedl; A H Rowberg
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Evaluation of teleradiology for interpretation of intravenous urograms.

Authors:  E J Halpern; J H Newhouse; E S Amis; H W Lubetsky; R M Jaffe; P D Esser; P O Alderson
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?

Authors:  S Taylor-Phillips; M G Wallis; A G Gale
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  The digital imaging workstation. 1990.

Authors:  Ronald L Arenson; Dev P Chakraborty; Sridhar B Seshadri; Harold L Kundel
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms.

Authors:  E D Pisano; S Zong; B M Hemminger; M DeLuca; R E Johnston; K Muller; M P Braeuning; S M Pizer
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Digital magnification mammography with matched incident exposure: physical imaging properties and detectability of simulated microcalcifications.

Authors:  Nobukazu Tanaka; Kentaro Naka; Hiroko Fukushima; Junji Morishita; Fukai Toyofuku; Masafumi Ohki; Yoshiharu Higashida
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2011-03-18

7.  The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting.

Authors:  E D Pisano; J Chandramouli; B M Hemminger; D Glueck; R E Johnston; K Muller; M P Braeuning; D Puff; W Garrett; S Pizer
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms?

Authors:  E D Pisano; J Chandramouli; B M Hemminger; M DeLuca; D Glueck; R E Johnston; K Muller; M P Braeuning; S Pizer
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Wavelet compression and segmentation of digital mammograms.

Authors:  B J Lucier; M Kallergi; W Qian; R A DeVore; R A Clark; E B Saff; L P Clarke
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 4.056

10.  Estimating the Accuracy Level Among Individual Detections in Clustered Microcalcifications.

Authors:  Maria V Sainz de Cea; Robert M Nishikawa; Yongyi Yang
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 10.048

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.