&lt;title&gt;How does observer training affect imaging performance in digital mammography?&lt;/title&gt;

Huda, Walter; Qu, Guoying; Jing, Zhenxue; Steinbach, Barbara G.; Honeyman‐Buck, Janice C.

doi:10.1117/12.383117

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies 2,38 have shown that for images of a contrast-detail phantom there were no significant differences in observer responses between radiologists and nonradiologists and that there was no noticeable improvement in the readers' performance with in- creased experience. 38 Therefore, the use of nonradiologists and inexperienced readers in this study should be acceptable.…”

Section: Image Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat‐panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems — A contrast‐detail phantom study

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flat-panel (FP) based digital radiography systems have recently been introduced as a new and improved digital radiography technology; it is important to evaluate and compare this new technology with currently widely used conventional screen/film (SF) and computed radiography (CR) techniques. In this study, the low-contrast performance of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide (aSi/Csl)-based flat-panel digital chest radiography system is compared to those of a screen/film and a computed radiography system by measuring their contrast-detail curves. Also studied were the effects of image enhancement in printing the digital images and dependence on kVp and incident exposure. It was found that the FP system demonstrated significantly better low-contrast performance than the SF or CR systems. It was estimated that a dose savings of 70%-90% could be achieved to match the low-contrast performance of the FP images to that of the SF images. This dose saving was also found to increase with the object size. No significant difference was observed in low-contrast performances between the SF and CR systems. The use of clinical enhancement protocols for printing digital images was found to be essential and result in better low-contrast performance. No significant effects were observed for different kVps. From the results of this contrast-detail phantom study, the aSi/CsI-based flat-panel digital chest system should perform better under clinical situations for detection of low-contrast objects such as lung nodules. However, proper processing prior to printing would be essential to realizing this better performance.

show abstract

Section: Image Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat‐panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems — A contrast‐detail phantom study

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research has used Gaussian profiles, disks, or simulated lung nodule profiles [4][5][6] to simulate masses for detection experiments. These models are overly simplistic to provide an adequately complex representation of breast masses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of breast masses for simulation purposes

Saunders

Samei

2004

SPIE Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simulation of radiographic lesions is an important prerequisite for several research applications in medical imaging, including hardware and software design and optimization. For mammography, breast masses are an important class of lesions to be considered. In this study, we first characterized both benign and malignant breast masses with example mammograms from the Digital Database for Screening Mammography (DDSM). The measured properties of each of these mass types were then used to create a simulation routine that was capable of creating example masses from each category. A preliminary observer experiment was conducted to determine whether a mammographer could distinguish between the simulated and true masses. An ROC analysis indicated A z values of 0.59 and 0.61 for benign and malignant lesions, respectively, suggesting very similar appearance for the simulated and real lesions. A larger observer performance experiment with multiple mammographers is underway to validate these results. (This work was supported by a grant from the NIH, R21-CA95308.)

show abstract

“…Previous studies 2 ' 38 have shown that for images of a contrast-detail phantom there were no significant differences in observer responses between radiologists and nonradiologists and that there was no noticeable improvement in the readers' performance with increasing experience. 38 Therefore, the use of a nonradiologist and inexperienced readers in this study should be acceptable.…”

Section: Image Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual-Energy Digital Mammography with a Full-Field aSi/CsI Flat-Panel Imager

Shaw¹

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<title>How does observer training affect imaging performance in digital mammography?</title>

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat‐panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems — A contrast‐detail phantom study

Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat‐panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems — A contrast‐detail phantom study

Characterization of breast masses for simulation purposes

Dual-Energy Digital Mammography with a Full-Field aSi/CsI Flat-Panel Imager

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About