Literature DB >> 3704149

Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film display.

R L Smathers, E Bush, J Drace, M Stevens, F G Sommer, B W Brown, B Karras.   

Abstract

Pulverized bone specks and aluminum oxide specks were measured by hand into sizes ranging from 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm and then arranged in clusters. These clusters were superimposed on a human breast tissue phantom, and xeromammograms and screen-film mammograms of the clusters were made. The screen-film mammograms were digitized using a high-resolution laser scanner and then displayed on cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Six radiologists independently counted the microcalcifications on the xeromammograms, the screen-film mammograms, and the digitized-film mammograms. The xeromammograms were examined with a magnifying glass; the screen-film images were examined with a magnifying glass and by hot light; and the digitized-film images were examined by electronic magnification and image processing. The bone speck size that corresponded to a mean 50% detectability level for each technique was as follows: xeromammography, 0.550 mm; digitized film, 0.573 mm; and screen-film, 0.661 mm. We postulate that electronic magnification and image processing with edge enhancement can improve the capability of screen-film mammography to enhance the detection of microcalcifications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3704149     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.159.3.3704149

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  7 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.  Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  M Koutalonis; H Delis; A Pascoal; G Spyrou; L Costaridou; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations.

Authors:  Joseph N Gitlin; Anand K Narayan; Chad A Mitchell; Ali M Akmal; David J Eisner; Lindsy M Peterson; Daisy Nie; Tyler R McClintock
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  Clinical use of digital mammography: the present and the prospects.

Authors:  R A Schmidt; R M Nishikawa
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.056

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.