SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

onr:"swepub:oai:lup.lub.lu.se:65b005a5-52fa-4143-93a5-694350a8f3df"
 

Search: onr:"swepub:oai:lup.lub.lu.se:65b005a5-52fa-4143-93a5-694350a8f3df" > How does image qual...

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist
  • Boita, JoanaRadboud University Medical Center,Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB) (author)

How does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography?

  • Article/chapterEnglish2021

Publisher, publication year, extent ...

  • 2021-01-21
  • Springer Science and Business Media LLC,2021
  • 9 s.

Numbers

  • LIBRIS-ID:oai:lup.lub.lu.se:65b005a5-52fa-4143-93a5-694350a8f3df
  • https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/65b005a5-52fa-4143-93a5-694350a8f3dfURI
  • https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07679-8DOI

Supplementary language notes

  • Language:English
  • Summary in:English

Part of subdatabase

Classification

  • Subject category:art swepub-publicationtype
  • Subject category:ref swepub-contenttype

Notes

  • Objectives: To study how radiologists’ perceived ability to interpret digital mammography (DM) images is affected by decreases in image quality. Methods: One view from 45 DM cases (including 30 cancers) was degraded to six levels each of two acquisition-related issues (lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise) and three post-processing-related issues (lower and higher contrast and increased correlated noise) seen during clinical evaluation of DM systems. The images were shown to fifteen breast screening radiologists from five countries. Aware of lesion location, the radiologists selected the most-degraded mammogram (indexed from 1 (reference) to 7 (most degraded)) they still felt was acceptable for interpretation. The median selected index, per degradation type, was calculated separately for calcification and soft tissue (including normal) cases. Using the two-sided, non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median indices for each case and degradation type were compared. Results: Radiologists were not tolerant to increases (medians: 1.5 (calcifications) and 2 (soft tissue)) or decreases (median: 2, for both types) in contrast, but were more tolerant to correlated noise (median: 3, for both types). Increases in quantum noise were tolerated more for calcifications than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3 vs. 4, p = 0.02). Spatial resolution losses were considered less acceptable for calcification detection than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3.5 vs. 5, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Perceived ability of radiologists for image interpretation in DM was affected not only by image acquisition-related issues but also by image post-processing issues, and some of those issues affected calcification cases more than soft tissue cases. Key Points: • Lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise affected the radiologists’ perceived ability to interpret calcification cases more than soft tissue lesion or normal cases. • Post-acquisition image processing-related effects, not only image acquisition-related effects, also impact the perceived ability of radiologists to interpret images and detect lesions. • In addition to current practices, post-acquisition image processing-related effects need to also be considered during the testing and evaluation of digital mammography systems.

Subject headings and genre

Added entries (persons, corporate bodies, meetings, titles ...)

  • van Engen, Ruben E.Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB) (author)
  • Mackenzie, AlistairRoyal Surrey County Hospital (author)
  • Tingberg, AndersLund University,Lunds universitet,Medicinsk strålningsfysik, Malmö,Forskargrupper vid Lunds universitet,LUCC: Lunds universitets cancercentrum,Övriga starka forskningsmiljöer,Medical Radiation Physics, Malmö,Lund University Research Groups,LUCC: Lund University Cancer Centre,Other Strong Research Environments,Skåne University Hospital(Swepub:lu)rfa-ati (author)
  • Bosmans, HildeCatholic University of Leuven,University Hospitals Leuven (author)
  • Bolejko, AnettaLund University,Lunds universitet,Diagnostisk radiologi, Malmö,Forskargrupper vid Lunds universitet,LUCC: Lunds universitets cancercentrum,Övriga starka forskningsmiljöer,Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö,Lund University Research Groups,LUCC: Lund University Cancer Centre,Other Strong Research Environments,Skåne University Hospital(Swepub:lu)med-abj (author)
  • Zackrisson, SophiaLund University,Lunds universitet,Diagnostisk radiologi, Malmö,Forskargrupper vid Lunds universitet,LUCC: Lunds universitets cancercentrum,Övriga starka forskningsmiljöer,Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö,Lund University Research Groups,LUCC: Lund University Cancer Centre,Other Strong Research Environments,Skåne University Hospital(Swepub:lu)smi-sza (author)
  • Wallis, Matthew G.NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre,Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (author)
  • Ikeda, Debra M.Stanford University (author)
  • Van Ongeval, ChantalUniversity Hospitals Leuven (author)
  • Pijnappel, RuudUniversity Medical Center Utrecht,Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB) (author)
  • Broeders, MireilleDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB),Radboud University Medical Center (author)
  • Sechopoulos, IoannisRadboud University Medical Center,Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB) (author)
  • Radboud University Medical CenterDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB) (creator_code:org_t)
  • VISUAL group

Related titles

  • In:European Radiology: Springer Science and Business Media LLC31:7, s. 5335-53430938-79941432-1084

Internet link

Find in a library

To the university's database

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view