The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 174-182

  Pisano, Etta D ^a   Chandramouli, Jayanthi ^b   Hemminger, Bradley M ^b   Glueck, Deb ^b   Eugene Johnston, R ^b   Muller, Keith ^b   Patricia Braeuning, M ^b   Puff, Derek ^b   Garrett, William ^b   Pizer, Stephen ^b  

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

^b NONE

Author keywords

Breast mass; Image processing; Mammography

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

DIGITAL DEVICES; DISPLAY DEVICES; IMAGE PROCESSING;

BREAST MASS; MAMMOGRAPHY;

RADIOLOGY;

EID: 0031260633     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03168840     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. 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
2. Homer MJ: Mammographic interpretation: A practical approach. New York, NY, McGraw Hill, 1991, pp 4-5
3. Pizer SM: Psychovisual issues in the display of medical images, in Hoehne KH (ed): Pictorial Information Systems In Medicine. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp 211-234
4. Jain AK: Fundamentals of Digital Image Processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1989
5. McSweeney MB, Sprawls P, Egan RL: Enhanced image mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 140:9-14, 1983
6. Smathers RL, Bush E, Drace J, et al: Mammographic microcalcifications: Detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film display. Radiology 159:673-677, 1986
7. Chan HP, Doi K, Galhorta S, et al: Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography: 1. Automated detection of microcalcifications in mammography. Med Phys 14:538-547, 1987
8. 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. Invest Radiol 22:581-589, 1987
9. Hale DA, Cook JF, Baniqued Z, et al: Selective Digital Enhancement of Conventional Film Mammography. J Surg Oncol 55:42-46, 1994
10. Yin F, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, et al: Comparison of Bilateral-Subtraction and Single-Image Processing Techniques in the Computerized Detection of Mammographic Masses. Invest Radiol 28:473-481, 1993
11. 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
12. Hemminger BM, Johnston RE, Muller KE, et al: Comparison of clinical findings between intensity-windowed versus CLAHE presentation of chest CT images. SPIE Medical Imaging VI: Image Capture, Format and Display 1653:164-175, 1992
13. Pizer SM, Zimmerman JB, Staab EV: Adaptive grey level assignment in CT scan display. J Comput Assist Tomog 8:300-305, 1984
14. Puff DT, Cromartie R, Pisano ED: Evaluation and optimization of contrast enhancement methods for medical images. Proceedings of the SPIE Visualization in Biomedical Computing Conference 1808:336-346, 1992
15. Puff DT, Pisano ED, Muller KE, et al: A method for determination of optimal image enhancement for the detection of mammographic abnormalities. J Digit Imaging 7:161-171, 1994
16. Revesz G, Kundel HL, Graber MD: The influence of structured noise on the detection of radiologic abnormalities. Invest Radiol 9:479-486, 1974
17. Kundel HL, Revesz G: Lesion conspicuity, structured noise and reader error. AJR Am J Roentgenol 126:1233-1238, 1976
18. Revesz G, Kundel HL: Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology. Radiology 128:559-562, 1977
19. Hemminger BM, Johnston RE, Rolland JR, et al: Introduction to perceptual linearization for video display systems for medical image presentation. J Digit Imaging 8:21-34, 1995
20. Shtem F: Digital mammography and related technologies: A perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 183:629-30, 1992
21. Pisano ED, Hemminger BM, Garrett W, et al: Does CLAHE image processing improve the detection of simulated masses in dense breasts in a laboratory setting? Presented at the Association of University Radiologists Meeting. Birmingham, AL, April 19, 1996
22. Pisano ED, Hemminger BM, Garrett W, et al: Does CLAHE image processing improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense breasts in a laboratory setting? Presented at the Association of University Radiologists Meeting. Birmingham, AL, April 19, 1996
23. MacMillan NA, Creelman CD: Detection theory: A user guide. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp 135-136