Interobserver agreement and performance score comparison in quality control using a breast phantom: Screen-film mammography vs computed radiography

European Radiology

Volumn 12, Issue 9, 2002, Pages 2192-2197

  Shimamoto, Kazuhiro ^a   Ikeda, Mitsuru ^b   Satake, Hiroko ^c   Ishigaki, Satoko ^c   Sawaki, Akiko ^c   Ishigaki, Takeo ^c  

^a NAGOYA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b NAGOYA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^c NAGOYA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Breast; Digital; Mammography; Observer variation; Radiography; statistics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGIST; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD; X RAY FILM;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; QUALITY CONTROL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 0036727444     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1357-7     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Hendrick RE (1992) Quality assurance in mammography: accreditation, legislation, and compliance with quality assurance standards. Radiol Clin North Am 30:243-255
2. Cardenosa G (2001) Phantom images. In: Breast imaging companion, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 37-40
3. Heywang-Koebrunner SH, Schreer I, Dershaw DD (1997) Quality factors. In: Diagnostic breast imaging. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 57-61
4. Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76:378-382
5. Cohen JA (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educat Physiol Meas 20:37-46
6. Cohen JA (1968) Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213-220
7. Higashida Y, Moribe N, Morita K, Katsuda N, Hatemura M, Takada T, Takahashi M, Yamashita J (1992) Detection of subtle microcalcifications: comparison of computed radiography and screen-film mammography. Radiology 183:483-486
8. Pisano ED, Chandramouli J, Hemminger BM, DeLuca M, Glueck D, Johnston RE, Muller K, Braeuning MP, Pizer S (1997) Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms. J Digit Imaging 10:79-84
9. Nakata M (1989) A study of image processing condition of mammography using FCR (Fuji Computed Radiography). Nippon Acta Radiol 49:454-467
10. Kallergi M, Clarke LP, Qian W, Gavrielides M, Venugopal P, Berman CG, Holman-Ferris SD, Miller MS, Clark RA (1996) Interpretation of calcifications in screen/film, digitized, and wavelet-enhanced monitor-displayed mammograms: a receiver operating characteristic study. Acad Radiol 3:285-293
11. Wang H, Langer S (1997) A brief review of human perception factors in digital display for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging 10:158-168
12. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Furukawa T, Tang C (1998) Influence of monitor luminance and tone scale on observer detection performance. Proc SPIE 3340:99-104
13. Takahashi S, Sakuma S (1968) Disappearance of image of very small object. In: Magnification radiography. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 21-24