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 to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
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)