Soft copy display requirements for digital mammography

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 292-305

  Hemminger, Bradley M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital mammography; Human computer interaction; Image processing; Pan; Softcopy image display; Zoom

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL LABORATORIES; COMPUTER AIDED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; CORRELATION METHODS; DATA REDUCTION; DISPLAY DEVICES; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; IMAGE PROCESSING; INTERFACES (COMPUTER); RADIOLOGY;

COMPUTER-AIDED DETECTION (CAD); DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAMS; SOFT COPY DISPLAY;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

ACCURACY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; ELECTRONICS; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW; SCREENING; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VELOCITY; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS; DATA DISPLAY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 2442427227     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-003-1659-6     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Baker LH: Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project: five-year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin 32:194-225, 1982
2. Beard DV, Bream P, Pisano ED, et al: A pilot study of eye movement during mammography interpretation: eye-tracker results and workstation design implications. J Digit Imaging 10:14-20, 1997
3. Beard DV, Hemminger BM, Perry JR, et al: Interpretation of CT studies: single-screen workstation versus film alternator. Radiology 187:565-569, 1993
4. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, et al: Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 219:192-202, 2001
5. Chan HP, Sahiner B, Helvie MA, et al: Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. Radiology 212:817-827, 1999
6. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ: Current status of digital mammography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 17:424-443, 1996
7. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ: Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781-786, 2001
8. Hemminger BM: Softcopy Display Requirements for Digital Mammography. Medical Imaging 2002: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display 4681, 2002
9. Hemminger BM, Zong S, Muller KE, et al: Improving the detection of simulated masses in mammograms through two different image-processing techniques. Acad Radiol 8:845-855, 2001
10. Hollingsworth AB, Taylor LD, Rhodes DC: Establishing a histologic basis for false-negative mammograms. Am J Surg 166:643-648, 1993
11. Krupinski E, Roehrig H, Furukawa T: Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search. Acad Radiol 6:411-448, 1999
12. Leichter I, Fields S, Nirel R, et al: Improved mammographic interpretation of masses using computer-aided diagnosis. Eur Radiol 10:377-383, 2000
13. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) International Standard, http://medical.nema. org Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2001
14. Pisano ED, Chandramouli J, Hemminger BM, et al: Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms? J Digit Imaging 10:79-84, 1997
15. Pisano ED, Chandramouli J, Hemminger BM, et al: The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting. J Digit Imaging 10:174-182, 1997
16. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, et al: Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographies 20:1479-1491, 2000
17. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, et al: Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483-488, 2002
18. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, et al: Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology 216:820-830, 2000
19. Pisano ED, Yaffe M: Digital mammography. Breast Disease 10:127-136, 1998
20. Pisano ED, Zong S, Hemminger BM, et al: Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated speculations in dense mammograms. J Digit Imaging 11:193-200, 1998
21. Puff DT, Cromartie R, Pisano ED: Evaluation and optimization of contrast enhancement methods for medical images. Proc SPIE: Visualization in Biomedical Computing Conference 1808:336-346, 1992
22. 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
23. Rosenman J, Roe CA, Cromartie R, et al: Portal film enhancement: technique and clinical utility. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25:333-338, 1993
24. Shtern F: Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 183:629-630, 1992
25. Shtern F, Winfield DW, Behlen F, et al: Report of Working Group on Digital Mammography: Digital Displays and Workstation Design. Academic Radiology 6:197-218, 1999
26. Weibrecht M, Spekowius G, Quadflieg P, et al: Image quality assessment of monochrome monitors for medical softcopy display. Proc SPIE 3031:232-244, 1997