Long-Term Stability of Image Quality Measurements for Two Digital Mammography Systems

  • Jennifer M. Oduko
  • Kenneth C. Young
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7361)


Contrast-detail measurements were made at approximately weekly intervals for three months, for two full-field mammography systems with different types of detector. The measured threshold contrast values were found to be reasonably stable but with some random variation. The coefficient of variance was 8-10% for detail sizes 0.1 and 1.0mm, and 3-5% for detail sizes 0.25 and 0.5mm. The output of both X-ray sets was also monitored, and found to vary within ±1% of the mean. The variation in threshold contrast is likely to be mainly due to variation of noise in the CDMAM images. Care should be taken when setting baselines and acceptable limits, so that measured changes in threshold contrast that are of the order of ±10% of the mean are not wrongly interpreted as significant changes in performance of a digital mammography system.


Image quality threshold contrast CDMAM 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    European Commission (EC): European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 4th edn. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young, K.C., Alsager, A., Oduko, J.M., Bosmans, H., Verbrugge, B., Geertse, T., Van Engen, R.: Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. In: Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, 69131C, 1–11 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Young K.C., Cook J.J.H., Oduko J.M., Bosmans H.: Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. In: Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, vol. 614206, pp. 1–13 (2006) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Young, K.C., Cook, J.J.H., Oduko, J.M.: Automated and Human Determination of Threshold Contrast for Digital Mammography Systems. In: Astley, S.M., Brady, M., Rose, C., Zwiggelaar, R. (eds.) IWDM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4046, pp. 266–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang, C.-Y.J., Van Metter, R.: The variability of software scoring of the CDMAM phantom associated with a limited number of images. In: Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, 65100C (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dance, D.R., Young, K.C., van Engen, R.E.: Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA dosimetry protocols. Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 4361–4372 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mackenzie, A., Dance, D.R., Workman, A., Yip, M., Wells, K., Young, K.C.: Development and validation of a method for converting images to appear with noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and X-ray system. Med. Phys. 39(5), 2721–2734 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer M. Oduko
    • 1
  • Kenneth C. Young
    • 1
  1. 1.NCCPMGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations