A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 51, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 2441-2463

  Marshall, N W ^a  

^a ST BARTHOLOMEW S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IMAGE QUALITY; OPTICAL FILTERS; QUANTUM EFFICIENCY; RADIATION DETECTORS; X RAY SPECTROSCOPY;

BEAM FILTRATION; DETECTIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY (DQE); NORMALIZED NOISE POWER SPECTRUM (NNPS);

MAMMOGRAPHY;

SELENIUM;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CALCULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIGITAL IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEASUREMENT; MODULATION TRANSFER FUNCTION; NORMALIZED NOISE POWER SPECTRUM; OBSERVER VARIATION; POWER SPECTRUM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTUM MECHANICS; SIGNAL DETECTION;

EID: 33646485572     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/006     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Albert M and Maidment A D 2000 Linear response theory for detectors consisting of discrete arrays Med. Phys. 27 2417-34
2. Aufrichtig R 1999 Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography Med. Phys. 26 1349-58
3. Burgess A E 1999 The Rose model, revisited J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16 633-46
4. Bunch P C 1999 Advances in high-speed mammographic image quality Proc. SPIE 3659 120-30
5. CEP Report 05084 2006 Full Field Digital Mammography Systems Hologic Selenia: A Technical Report (London: HMSO)
6. Cohen G, McDaniel D L and Wagner L K 1984 Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments Med. Phys. 11 469-73
7. Cowen A R, Brettle D S, Coleman N J and Parkin G J 1992 A preliminary investigation of the imaging performance of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography using a new design of mammographic quality control test object Br. J. Radiol. 65 528-35
8. Cowen A R, Haywood J M, Workman A and Clarke O F 1987 A set of X-ray test objects for image quality control in digital subtraction fluorography: I. Design considerations Br. J. Radiol 60 1001-9
9. Cranley K, Gilmore B J, Fogarty G W A and Desponds L 1997 Catalogue of diagnostic x-ray spectra and other data IPEM Report vol 78 (York: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine)
10. Cunningham I A 2000 Applied linear systems theory Physics and Psychophysics Vol 1 Handbook of Medical Imaging ed J Beutel, H L Kundel and R L van Metter (Bellingham: SPIE) pp 79-159
11. Cunningham I A and Shaw R 1999 Signal-to-noise optimization of medical imaging systems J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16 1-13
12. Dainty J C and Shaw R 1974 Image Science-Principles, Analysis and Evaluation of Photographic-Type Imaging Processes (London: Academic)
13. Dance D R and Day G J 1984 The computation of scatter in mammography by Monte Carlo methods Phys. Med. Biol. 29 237-47
14. Dobbins J T III 2000 Image quality metrics for digital systems Physics and Psychophysics Vol 11 Handbook of Medical Imaging ed J Beutel, H L Kundel and R L van Metter (Bellingham: SPIE) pp 161-222
15. Dobbins J T III, Ergun D L, Rutz L, Hinshaw D A, Blume H and Clark D C 1995 DQE(f) of four generations of computed radiography acquisition devices Med. Phys. 22 1581-93
16. EUREF Digital Addendum 2003 Addendum on Digital Mammography to Chapter 3 of the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening (Version 1.0, November 2003) (Nijmegen, the Netherlands: European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF))
17. Evans D S, Workman A and Payne M 2002 A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices used for small field digital mammography Phys. Med. Biol. 47 117-35
18. Flynn M J and Samei E 1999 Experimental comparison of noise and resolution for 2 k and 4 k storage phosphor radiography systems Med. Phys. 26 1612-23
19. Fujita H, Tsai D-Y, Itch T, Doi K, Morishita J, Ueda K and Ohtsuka A 1992 A simple method for determining the modulation transfer function in digital radiography IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 11 34-39
20. Giger M L, Doi K and Metz C E 1984 Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography: 2. Noise Wiener spectrum Med. Phys. 11 797-805
21. Hanson K M 1983 Variations in task and the ideal observer Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 419 60-67
22. Hay G A, Clarke O F, Coleman N J and Cowen A R 1985 A set of X-ray test objects for quality control in television fluoroscopy Br. J. Radiol. 58 335-44
23. Hillen W, Schiebel U and Zaengel T 1987 Imaging performance of a digital storage phosphor system Med. Phys. 14 744-51
24. ICRU 1996 Medical imaging-the assessment of image quality ICRU Report 54 (Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU))
25. IPEM 2005 Commissioning and routine testing of mammographic X-ray systems IPEM Report 89 ed A C Moore, D R Dance, D S Evans, C P Lawinski, E M Pitcher, A Rust and K C Young (York: IPEM)
26. Ishida M, Doi K, Loo L-N, Metz C E and Lehr J L 1984 Digital image processing: effect on detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic patterns Radiology 150 569-75
27. Judy P F 1976 The line spread function and modulation transfer function of a computed tomographic scanner Med. Phys. 3 233-6
28. Kelly D H 1979 Motion and vision II stabilized spatio-temporal threshold surface J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69 1340-9
29. Kume Y, Doi K, Ohara K and Giger M L 1986 Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography: 10. Structure mottle of II-TV digital imaging systems Med. Phys. 13 843-49
30. Maidment A D and Albert M 2003 Conditioning data for calculation of the modulation transfer function Med. Phys. 30 248-53
31. Maidment A D A, Albert M, Bunch P C, Cunningham I A, Dobbins J T, Gagne R M, Nishikawa R M, Wagner R F and Van Metter R L 2003 Standardization of NPS measurement: Interim Report of AAPM TG16 Proc. SPIE 5030 523-32
32. Marshall N W, Kotre C J, Robson K J and Lecomber A R 2001 Receptor dose in digital fluorography: a comparison between theory and practice Phys. Med. Biol. 46 1283-96
33. Metz C E, Wagner R F, Doi K, Brown D G, Nishikawa R M and Myers K J 1995 Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems Med. Phys. 22 1057-61
34. Moran P R 1982 A physical statistics theory for detectability of target signals in noisy images: I. Mathematical background, empirical review and development of theory Med. Phys. 9 401-13
35. Rogge F, Bosmans H, Willems P and Marchal G 2003 Use of MTF calculation in global and local resolution assessment in digital mammography Proc. SPIE 5030 896-907
36. Rose A 1948 The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale J. Opt. Soc. Am. 38 196-208
37. Rowlands J A and Yorkston J 2000 Flat panel detectors for digital radiography Physics and Psychophysics Vol 1 Handbook of Medical Imaging ed J Beutel, H L Kundel and R L van Metter (Bellingham: SPIE) pp 223-328
38. Samei E and Flynn M J 2003 An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems Med. Phys. 30 608-22
39. Samei E, Flynn M J and Reimann D A 1998 A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device Med. Phys. 25 102-13
40. Siewerdsen J H and Antonuk L E 1998 DQE and system optimization for indirect-detection flat-panel imagers in diagnostic radiology Proc. SPIE 3336 546-55
41. Siewerdsen J H, Antonuk L E, el-Mohri Y, Yorkston J, Huang W, Boudry J M and Cunningham I A 1997 Empirical and theoretical investigation of the noise performance of indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for diagnostic radiology Med. Phys. 24 71-89
42. Schnitzler A D 1973 Image-detector model and parameters of the human visual system J. Opt. Soc. Am 63 1357-68
43. Sones R A and Barnes G T 1984 A method to measure the MTF of digital x-ray systems Med. Phys. 11 166-71
44. Stierstorfer K and Spahn M 1999 Self-normalizing method to measure the detective quantum efficiency of a wide range of x-ray detectors Med. Phys. 26 1312-9
45. Wagner R F and Brown D G 1985 Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems Phys. Med. Biol. 30 489-518
46. Williams M B, Mangiafico P A and Simoni P U 1999 Noise power spectra of images from digital mammography detectors Med. Phys. 26 1279-93
47. Workman A and Cowen A R 1993 Signal, noise and SNR transfer properties of computed radiography Phys. Med. Biol. 38 1789-808
48. Yorker J G, Jeromin L S, Lee D L Y, Palecki E F, Golden K P and Jing Z 2002 Characterization of a full field digital mammography detector based on direct x-ray conversion in selenium Proc. SPIE 4682 21-9
49. Zhao W, Ji W G, Debrie A and Rowlands J A 2003 Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector Med. Phys. 30 254-63