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.
Automated registration of diagnostic to prediagnostic x-ray mammograms: Evaluation and comparison to radiologists’ accuracy
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.3457470
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/37/9/10.1118/1.3457470
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/37/9/10.1118/1.3457470

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Example of simulated mammograms from magnetic resonance breast images.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Example of landmarks identified by a mammography film reader and an affine registration. Footnote: Identified points on the diagnostic film (left, white) and the mean locations of the landmarks identified by the same reader on the prediagnostic film (right, white) plus landmark locations generated from the affine registration algorithm (right, black). (Points 1 and 2 indicate the tumor, points 3 and 4 indicate normal features, and point 5 indicates the nipple.)

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Prediagnostic image showing the two sets of points identified by a reader at two separate sittings ( and , grey and black points) and the corresponding points from the affine registration (, white points).

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Parameter combinations used to train the affine, FFD, and fluid registration methods.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Parameter combinations for the affine, FFD, and fluid registration methods which produced the most accurate registrations for the simulation training set of 20 registration pairs (ten women).

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Registration accuracy for mammogram simulation test set of 20 image pairs created from ten women’s MRIs.a

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Characteristics of the study subjects and of their tumors. density; deviation, and range.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Mean within-reader and between-reader error distances. interval.

Generic image for table
TABLE VI.

Population mean (95% CI) for registration errors by landmark and breast density (data adjusted for radiologists working conditions). interval; density.

Generic image for table
TABLE VII.

Descriptive statistics for the registration methods by landmark and breast density. density.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/37/9/10.1118/1.3457470
2010-08-05
2014-04-17
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Automated registration of diagnostic to prediagnostic x-ray mammograms: Evaluation and comparison to radiologists’ accuracy
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/37/9/10.1118/1.3457470
10.1118/1.3457470
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM