Abstract
We compared three conspicuity tests applied to four full field digital mammography (FFDM) systems. The tests included: 1) the calculation of noise equivalent quanta (NEQ); 2) contrast-detail analysis with the CDMAM 3.4 phantom and 3) evaluation of the detectability of (simulated) microcal-cifications with specific well-known dimensions in mastectomy images. For each contrast-resolution test method, the exposure, processing and viewing conditions were identical. As a result, the only variable for a given test was the physical performance of the detector. The three test methods each rank the detectors in the same order. The flat-panel detector ranked the best overall, the dual-sided read-out storage phosphor detector ranked second and the single-sided-read-out storage phosphor detectors with 50 μm and 100 μm pixel sizes ranked similarly and were inferior to the other 2 detectors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Medical Imaging - The Assessment of Image Quality, ICRU Report 54 (April 1996)
User Manual CDMAM 3.4, Artinis, Medical Systems B.V.
Carton, A.-K., Bosmans, H., Vanongeval, C., Souverijns, G., Rogge, F., Van Steen, A., Marchal, G.: Development and validation of a simulation procedure to study the visibility of microcalcifications in digital mammograms. Med. Phys. 30, 2234–2240 (2003)
Carton, A.-K., Bosmans, H., Vandenbroucke, D., Souverijns, G., Van Ongeval, C., Dragusin, O.: Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible micro alcifications in full field digital mammograms. Med. Phys. 31, 2165–2176 (2004)
Samei, E., Flynn, M.J., Reimann, D.A.: A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. Med. Phys. 25, 102–113 (1998)
Dobbins III, J.T.: Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems. In: Hanbook of Medical Imaging, ch. 3. Physics and Psychophysics, SPIE 2000, vol. 1 (2000)
Swets, J.A., Pickett, R.M.: Evaluation of diagnostic systems: Methods from signal detection theory. Academic Press, New York (1982)
Burgess, A.E.: Mammographic structure: Data preparation and spatial statistics analysis. In: Hanson, K. (ed.) Medical Imaging 1999: Image Processing, vol. 3661, pp. 642–653. SPIE, Bellingham (1999)
Chakraborty, D.P.: The FROC, AFROC and DROC variants of the ROC Analysis. In: Beutel, J., Kundel, H.L., Van Metter, R.L. (eds.) Handbook of medical imaging, Physics and Psychophysics, ch. 16, vol. 1. SPIE, Bellingham (2000)
Efron, B.: The Jacknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. SIAM, Philadelphia (1982)
The European Protocol for the Quality Control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening: Addendum on Digital Mammography (November 2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Carton, A.K. et al. (2006). Contrast Threshold of 4 Full Field Digital Mammography Systems Using Different Measurement Methods. In: Astley, S.M., Brady, M., Rose, C., Zwiggelaar, R. (eds) Digital Mammography. IWDM 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4046. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11783237_80
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11783237_80
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-35625-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-35627-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)