Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms?

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 79-84

  Pisano, Etta D ^a   Chandramouli, Jayanthi ^a   Hemminger, Bradley M ^a   DeLuca, Maria ^a   Glueck, Deb ^a   Eugene Johnston, R ^a   Muller, Keith ^a   Patricia Braeuning, M ^a   Pizer, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Calcifications; Computers; Image processing; Intensity windowing; Mammography; Observer studies; Radiology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; EDGE DETECTION; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING;

CALCIFICATION; INTENSITY WINDOWING; MAMMOGRAPHY;

RADIOLOGY;

EID: 0031128575     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03168559     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Homer MJ: Mammographic Interpretation: A practical approach. New York, NY, McGraw Hill, 1991, pp 4-5
2. Rosenman J, Roe CA, Cromartie R, et al: Portal Film enhancement: Technique and clinical utility. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physics 25:333-338, 1993
3. Shtern F: Digital mammography and related technologies: A perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 183:629-630, 1992
4. Puff DT, Pisano ED, Muller KE, et al: A method for determination of optimal image enhancement for the detection of mammographic abnormalities. J Dig Imaging 7:161-171, 1994
5. Pisano ED, Chandramouli J, Hemminger BM, et al: Utility of Intensity Windowing in Improved Detection of Simulated Masses in Mammograms of Dense Breasts. Presented at the Radiologic Society of North America Meeting. Chicago, IL, November 27, 1995
6. McSweeney MB, Sprawls P, Egan RL: Enhanced Image Mammography. AJR 140:9-14, 1983
7. Smathers RL, Bush E, Drace J, et al: Mammographic microcalcifications: Detection with xerography, screen film, and digitized film display. Radiology 159:673-677, 1986
8. Chan HP, Doi K, Galhorta S, et al: Image Feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography: I. Automated detected of microcalcifications in mammography. Med Phys 14:538-547, 1987
9. Chan HP, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H, et al: Digital mammography ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications. Investigative Radiol 22:581-589, 1987
10. Hale DA, Cook JF, Baniqued Z, et al: Selective Digital Enhancement of Conventional Film Mammography. J Surg Oncol 55:42-46, 1994
11. Yin F, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, et al: Comparison of Bilateral-Subtraction and Single-Image Processing Techniques in the Computerized Detection of Mammographic Masses. Investigative Radiol 28:473-781, 1993
12. Yin F, Giger M, Doi K, et al: Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: Analysis of Bilateral Subtraction Images. Med Phys 18:955-963, 1991
13. Pizer SM: Psychovisual issues in the display of medical images. KH Hoehne, ed, Pictorial Information Systems in Medicine. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp 211-234
14. Revesz G, Kundel HL, Graber MD: The influence of structured noise on the detection of radiologic abnormalities. Investigative Radiol 9:479-486, 1974
15. Kundel HL, Reversz G: Lesion conspicuity, structured noise and fil reader error. AJR 126:1233-1238, 1976
16. Revesz G, Kundel HL: Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology. Radiology 128:559-562, 1977
17. MacMillan NA, Creelman CD: Detection theory: A user guide. Cambridge, England, Cambridge, 1991, pp 135-136