The phantom is imaged in the unused portion of each mammogram.
Image of the geometry used to find breast thickness and paddle tilt.
The phantom appearing in all four screening views, as would be seen from a reading workstation.
Phantom image with valid ROIs shown as the numbered dark areas. The stars represent 3D-reconstructed lead marker locations.
(a) A mammogram where the gray scale is calibrated to %FGV. (b) The modeled breast thickness from the same mammogram using the SXA method.
Three phantoms used to for quality control and validation of the SXA method. (Left) TILT phantom, (center) DSP7, (right) DSP3.
Calibration image showing measured fibroglandular reference line, derived fat references as dependent on the step height. Quadratic fits plotted as lines and breast region pixel frequencies plotted as contours.
Bland–Altman plot of difference between the DICOM thickness (Hd) and our phantom-reported thickness (Hph).
%FGV error estimation due to thickness variation for three true thickness of 6, 4, and 2 cm. The slope of the %FGV error varies as a function of true thickness.
FGV error estimation due to thickness variation.
%FGV error estimation due to angle variation.
ROI pixel values of the TILT phantom with , 50/50, and 100% and a tilt angle of 6.8°.
Chest-to-nipple pixel profile values for a single image row of a breast with the appearance of totally fatty. This profile is compared to phantom materials with the same thickness profile but different densities. Note that the breast is more “fatty” than the CIRS fat reference material.
Tilt paddle angle distributions for 14 000 subject CC-view mammograms of both right and left breasts.
Long-term stability of the SXA technique on a Hologic Selenia full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
A comparison of mammographic density and percent fibroglandular tissue volume for 300 CC-view mammograms.
Precision and accuracy estimates for phantom thickness at different compression plate angles.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...