Quantifying the performance of human and software CDMAM phantom image observers for the qualification of digital mammography systems

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 5745, Issue I, 2005, Pages 486-498

  Fletcher Heath, Lynn ^a   Van Metter, Richard ^a  

^a EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Alternative forced choice; CDMAM phantom; Contrast detail; Digital mammography; Observer performance; Quality control

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; FLAT PANEL DISPLAYS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT TREATMENT; PERFORMANCE; QUALITY CONTROL; SIGNAL DETECTION;

ALTERNATIVE FORCED CHOICE; CDMAM PHANTOM; CONTRAST DETAIL; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

EID: 23844452194     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.595510     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. R. van Engen, K. Young, H. Bosmans, and M. Thijssen, European Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Mammography Screening, Part B: Digital Mammography, Draft Edition January 2005, European Commission, National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening 451, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands Nijmegan, The Netherlands, January 2005.
2. A. Rose, Vision Human and Electronic, Plenum Press, New York (1973);
3. M. Thijssen et al., "A definition of image quality: the image quality figure," BIR Report 20, pp 29-34 (1990);
4. S.R. Thompson and K. Faulkner, "A phantom for the measurement of contrast detail performance in film-screen mammography," British J. Radiol. 64, 1049-1055 (1991);
5. L-N.D. Loo, K. Doi, M. Ishida, C.E. Metz, "An empirical investigation of variability in contrast-detail diagram measurements," Proc SPIE 419, 68-76 (1983);
6. G. Cohen, D.L. McDaniel and L.K. Wagner, "Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments," Med. Phys. 11, 469-473 (1984);
7. and T. Fearon et al. "A comparison evaluation of rare-earth screen-film systems: system speed, contrast, sensitometry, RMS noise, square-wave response function and contrast-dose-detail analysis," in vest. Radiol. 21, 654-662 (1986).
8. R.F. Wagner, C.E. Metz and D.G. Brown, "Signal detection theory and medical image assessment," in Recent developments in digital imaging, ed. K. Doi, L. Lanzl and P-J.P. Lin, AAPM Monograph 12, American Institue of Physics (1985).
9. M.J. Tapiovaara and M. Sanborg, "How should low-contrast detectibility be measured in fluoroscopy," Med. Phys. 31, 2564-2576 (2004).
10. A.E. Burgess, "Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods," Med. Phys. 22, 643-655 (1995).
11. R. Visser and N. Karssemeijer, "CDCOM Manual: software for automated readout of CDMAM 3.4 images"; (note: CDCOM software, manual and sample images are posted at http:www.euref.org)
12. K.R. Bijkerk, M.A.O. Thijssen, Th.J.M. Arnoldussen, IWDM 2000 report: Modification of the CDMAM contrast-detail phantom for image quality of Full Field Digital Mammography systems. University Medical Centre Nijmegan, St. Radboud, The Netherlands, 2000.
13. M. A.O. Thijssen, W. Veldkamp, R. Van Engen, M. Swinkels, N. Karssemeijer, J. Hendricks, "Comparison of the detectability of small details in a film-screen and a digital mammography system by the imaging of a new CDMAM-phantom", Proceedings of IWDM 2000, pp.666-672, M. Yaffe ed, Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI, Toronto, 2000.
14. N. Karssemeijer, M.A.O. Thijssen, "Determination of contrast-detail curves of mammography systems by automated image analysis", in Digital Mammography '96. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Digital Mammography, 155-160 (1996).
15. R. Rico, S. Muller, G. Peter, A. Noël, and J. Stines, "Automatic scoring of CDMAM: A dose study," Proc SPIE 5034, 164-173 (2003).
16. "Medical electrical equipment - Characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices - Part 1: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency" IEC 62220-1 Ed.1, International Electrotechnical Commission (2003).
17. P. Sharp et al. "Medical imaging - the assessment of image quality," ICRU Report 54, International Commission on Radiation Unit, Bethesda, MD (1995).
18. "Readout of CDMAM 3.4 images by human observers," posted on http:www.euref.org. "In this document an example is given of a readout of CDMAM 3.4 images by experienced observers, from the National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening at Nijmegen. This example can be used as reference results of measurement 2.4.1 Threshold contrast visibility of the 'Addendum on digital mammography to chapter 3 of the European Guidelines, version 1.0'."
19. K.R. Bijkerk, M.A.O. Thijssen, Th.J.M. Arnoldussen, "Manual CDMAM-Phantom Type 3.4" (translation from the Dutch by S. van Woudenberg) University Medical Centre Nujmegen (July 2000).
20. L.L. Havlicek and R.D. Grain, Practical Statistics for the Phsyics Sciences, pp 422-3, American Chemical Society, Washington, 1988.
21. K. Ohara, K. Doi, C.E. Metz, and M.L. Giger, "Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 13. Effect of simple structured noise on the detectability of simulated stenotic lesions," Med. Phys. 16, pp. 14-21, 1989.
22. P.B Elliott "'Tables of d'", pp 679-681 in Signal Detection and Recognition by Human Observers ed. J.A Swets, Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964.
23. L.L. Havlicek and R.D. Crain "Practical Statistics for the Physical Sciences" American Chemical Society, Washington, pp 188-198 (1988).
24. Med Phys 30, 1712 (2003)
25. A.E. Burgess, R.F. Wagner, R.J. Jennings, and H.B. Barlow, "Efficiency of human visual discrimination," Science 214, 93-94 (1981).
26. R. van Engen, K. Young, H. Bosmans, M. Thijssen, "Addendum on Digital Mammography, European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening," Appendix A.3.2., p 44, Third Edition, European Commission, Version 1.0, Nijmegan, The Netherlands, November 2003.