Simulation of digital mammography images

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 5745, Issue II, 2005, Pages 933-942

  Workman, Adam ^a  

^a ROYAL GROUP OF HOSPITALS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCIUM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEMS; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO;

BREAST SCREENING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGE SHARPNESS; MICROCALCIFICATION;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

EID: 23844549288     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.595082     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Blanks RG, Moss SM et al. Effect of NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales, 1990-8: comparison of observed with predicted mortality. British Medical Journal 321, p665-669. 2000
2. Vedantham S, Karellas A et al. Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Medical Physics 27, p558-567. 2000
3. Arakawa S, Yasuda H et al. Improvement of image quality in CR mammography by the detection of emissions from dual sides of an imaging plate. Proc. SPIE, 3977, p590-600. 2000
4. Besson GM, Koch A et al. Design and evaluation of a slot-scanning full-field digital mammography system. Proceedings of SPIE Vol 4682, p 457-468. 2002
5. Workman A and Brettle DS. Physical performance measures of radiographic imaging systems. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 26, p139-146. 1997
6. Dance DR, Thilander Klang A et al. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a monte carlo study. British Journal of Radiology 73, p1056-1067. 2000
7. Boone JM, Lindfors KK et al. Scatter/primary in mammography: Comprehensive results. Medical Physics 27, p2408-2416. 2000
8. Rong XJ, Shaw CC et al.Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: Flat-panel, CCD, CR and screen/film. Medical Physics 29, p2052-2061. 2002
9. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 218, p873-880. 2001
10. Skaane P, Young K and Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Oslo I study. Radiology 229, p877-884 (2003)
11. Digital Mammography in Screening Trial (DMIST)
12. Kaufhold J, Thomas JA et al. A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography. Medical Physics 29, p 1867-1880. 2002
13. Cranley K, Gilmore BJ, Fogarty GWA and Desponds L. Catalogue of diagnostic X-ray spectra and other data IPEM Report No. 78 IPEM (York). 1997
14. http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/
15. Fujita H, Morishita J, Ueda K, Tsai DY, Ohtsuka A and Fujikawa T Resolution properties of a computed radiographic system, SPIE 1090 263-275. 1989
16. Workman A and Cowen AR. Signal, noise and SNR properties of a computed radiography system. Phys. Med. Biol. 38. 1789-1808. 1993
17. Evans DS, Workman A and Payne M.A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices for small field digital mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 47, p117-135 (2002)
18. Barnes GT. Optimising mammography system performance. p543-564 In: Frey GD, Sprawls P, eds. The expanding role of medical physics in diagnostic imaging. Madison WI. 1997