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.
Algorithmic scatter correction in dual-energy digital mammography
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.4826173
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/11/10.1118/1.4826173
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/11/10.1118/1.4826173

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Schematic drawing of the selected pixels, A ( = 1, . . , 8), B ( = 1, . . , 6), and C ( = 1, . . , 3). Pixels B and C lie between pixels A. Scattered radiation of pixel B or C can be represented as the average of scattered radiation of pixel A.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(a) Schematic drawing of the breast phantom (Model 017). (b) The calcification phantom consisting of 42 calcification clusters (AlO crystals) arranged in a 6 × 7 grid. Each cluster consisted of nine calcifications in a 3 × 3 pattern. The clusters were arranged by size into six rows with nominal size ranges of 180–230, 230–280, 280–330, 330–380, 380–430, and 430–480 m. (c) Imaged object. Calcification phantoms lay on the breast phantom CIRS Model 017.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Schematic of the calibration measurements under narrow-beam geometry.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

High energy image of breast phantom, the region inside the green dashed lines is 1000 × 800 pixels, asterisks indicate independent pixels, and dots indicate dependent pixels in algorithmic scatter correction method.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Scatter signal field estimated using the algorithmic method and pinhole-array interpolation method: (a) algorithmic method LE, (b) algorithmic method HE, (c) pinhole-array interpolation method LE, and (d) pinhole-array interpolation method HE.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

The differences of SPRs estimated by algorithmic method and pinhole-array method: (a) LE (5 cm thick), (b) HE (5 cm thick), (c) LE (4 cm thick), and (d) HE (4 cm thick).

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Scatter signal field estimated using the algorithmic method: (a) sampling interval 50–70 pixels, LE, (b) sampling interval 50–70 pixels, HE, (c) sampling interval 180–210 pixels, LE, and (d) sampling interval 180–210 pixels, HE.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

A 80 × 865 pixel corresponding section of the LE and DE calcification images (1643–1722, 68–932) showing calcification size ranges of 180–230 (left), 230–280, 280–330, 330–380, and 380–430 m (right) for 30% glandularity tissue-equivalent material data. (a) DE/o, (b) DE-pin, (c) DE-al, and (d) DE-al-de.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

SPRs measured by the algorithmic method (bold) and pinhole-array interpolation method at the same locations with different glandular ratios in phantoms, low energy.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

SPRs measured by the algorithmic method (bold) and pinhole-array interpolation method at the same locations with different glandular ratios in phantoms, high energy.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Background DE calcification signals calculated based on the pinhole-array interpolation scatter correction, the 60 pixel pairs lay on the locations of the center of pinholes.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Background DE calcification signals calculated based on algorithmic scatter correction, the pixel pairs were independent pairs in algorithmic method.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Background DE calcification signals without scatter correction, pixel pairs were the same as in Tables III and IV .

Generic image for table
TABLE VI.

The median, minimum, and maximum background DE calcification signals (m) in the regions-of-interest with and without scatter correction.

Generic image for table
TABLE VII.

The median, minimum, and maximum background DE calcification signals (m) in the regions-of-interest when the algorithmic method was used with different sampling intervals.

Generic image for table
TABLE VIII.

The median, minimum, and maximum background DE calcification signals (m) in the regions-of-interest when algorithmic method was used with and without denoising technique. Sampling interval was 60–120 pixels.

Generic image for table
TABLE IX.

A direct comparison of the average calcification CNR of the three calcification sizes (230–280, 280–330, and 330–380 m) over three glandular ratios of 30%, 45%, and 70% in the LE image and DE calcification images without/with scatter correction (pinhole-array interpolation method and algorithmic method). The CNR values of DE calcification images with algorithmic scatter correction and denoised techniques are also listed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/11/10.1118/1.4826173
2013-10-25
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Algorithmic scatter correction in dual-energy digital mammography
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/11/10.1118/1.4826173
10.1118/1.4826173
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM