1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.2776253
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/10/10.1118/1.2776253
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/10/10.1118/1.2776253

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Overview of study methods.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Simulated lesion examples. This includes a malignant mass (left), benign mass (center), and a subtle microcalcification distribution (right).

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(a) Normalized noise power spectrum of the detector noise for an average mammogram in our database. The relative inherent quantum noise magnitude, or the integral of the NNPS, was , , and for , , and , respectively. (b) Example mammographic regions at each of the noise levels with on the left, in the center, and on the right.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(a). Three resolution levels evaluated in this study. These correspond to the resolution of an indirect digital detector convolved with three different display devices. The geometric sharpness, or integral of the , was 2.14, 0.92, and 0.90 for , , and , respectively. (b) Example mammographic regions at each of the three resolution levels with on the left, in the center, and on the right.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Distribution of images in each resolution and noise category. The backgrounds were paired, as noted by the split lines with gray circles, to increase statistical power for certain tasks. The category of was not evaluated in this experiment to reduce the duration of the human observer experiment.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Overall classification accuracy (a) and lesion detection accuracy (b) for the average observer at different resolution and noise levels.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Task performance for average observer at different resolution and noise levels.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

(a) Effect of resolution on task performance using VDM observer. (b) Effect of noise on task performance using VDM observer.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

(a) Effect of resolution on task performance using NPWE model. (b) Effect of noise on task performance using NPWE model.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Microcalcification detection accuracy as a function of dose. The solid line illustrates the data fit by a square root function.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Overview of display properties. The CRT display was further modified by defocusing its electron gun in order to produce both the standard resolution and degraded resolution CRT evaluated in this experiment. The first six rows reflect manufacturer specifications, while the luminance values in the last two rows were measured in our laboratories (Refs. 2 and 27). All monitors were calibrated to the DICOM and AAPM TG18 standards.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/10/10.1118/1.2776253
2007-09-24
2014-04-18
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/10/10.1118/1.2776253
10.1118/1.2776253
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM