A perceptual evaluation of JPEG 2000 image compression for digital mammography: Contrast-detail characteristics

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 64-70

  Suryanarayanan, Sankararaman ^a   Karellas, Andrew ^a   Vedantham, Srinivasan ^a   Waldrop, Sandra M ^a   D'Orsi, Carl J ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Contrast detail; Digital mammography; Image compression; JPEG 2000

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; CONTRAST MEDIA; DISPLAY DEVICES; MAMMOGRAPHY; STATISTICAL METHODS;

ALTERNATIVE FORCED CHOICE (AFC); CONTRAST DETAIL (CD); DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; JPEG 2000;

IMAGE COMPRESSION;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; PERCEPTION; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; THICKNESS; ALGORITHM; EVALUATION; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; DATA COMPRESSION; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; SOFTWARE;

EID: 4344659660     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-003-1728-x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Lewin JM, Hendrick ER, D'Orsil CJ, et al: Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873-880, 2001
2. Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, et al: Breast imaging using an amorphous silicon-based full-field digital mammography system: stability of a clinical prototype. J Digit Imaging 13:191-199, 2000
3. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al: Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399-406, 1997
4. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, et al: Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. Acad Radiol 7:1085-1097, 2000
5. Boone JM, Nelson TR, Lindfors K, et al: Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology 221:657-667, 2001
6. Chen B, Ning R: Cone-beam volume CT breast imaging: feasibility study. Med Phys 29:755-770, 2002
7. Chan H, Lo SB, Niklason LT, et al: Image compression in digital mammography: effects on computerized detection of subtle microcalcifications. Med Phys 23:1325-1336, 1996
8. Egashira K, Nakata H, Watanabe H, et al: Clinical evaluation of irreversible data compression for computed radiography of the chest. J Digit Imaging 11:176-181, 1998
9. Foos DH, Muka E, Slone RM, et al: JPEG 2000 compression for medical imagery. Medical Imaging 2000: PACS Design and Evaluation. Eng Clin Issues 3980:85-96, 2000
10. Good WF, Sumkin JH, Ganott M, et al: Detection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgerol 175:1573-1576, 2000
11. Information available at http://www.jpeg.org/JPEG2000.html, official homepage of JPEG 2000
12. Jones PW, Rabbani M: JPEG compression in medical imaging. In: Kim Y, Horii SC eds Handbook of Medical Imaging, vol 3: Displays and PACS. SPIE Press, Washington, DC, 2002, pp 221-275
13. Savcenko V, Erickson BJ, Persons KR, et al: An evaluation of JPEG and JPEG 2000 irreversible compression algorithms applied to neurologic computed tomography and magnetic resonance images. Joint Photographic Experts Group. J Digit Imaging 13(2 Suppl 1):183-185, 2000
14. Sung MM, Kim HJ, Yoo SK, et al: Clinical evaluation of compression ratios using JPEG2000 on computed radiography chest images. J Digit Imaging 15:78-83, 2002
15. Harpen MD: An introduction to wavelet theory and application for the radiological physicist. Med Phys 25:1985-1993, 1998
16. Liu H, Fajardo LL, Barrett JR, et al: Contrast-detail detectability analysis: comparison of a digital spot mammography system and an analog screen-film mammography system. Acad Radiol 4:197-203, 1997
17. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, et al: Flat-panel digital mammography system contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hardcopy/images. Radiology 225:801-807, 2002
18. Wang J, Anderson J, Lane T, et al: Contrast-detail characteristic evaluations of several display devices. J Digit Imaging 13(2 Suppl 1):162-167, 2000
19. Wang J, Langer S: A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging 10:158-168, 1997
20. Veldkamp WJH, Thijssen MAO, Karssemeijer N: The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography. Med Phys 30:1712-1718, 2003
21. Aufrichtig R: Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Med Phys 26:1349-1358, 1999
22. Aufrichtig R, Xue P: Dose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon x-ray detector for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 45:2653-2669, 2000
23. Ohara K, Doi K, Metz CE, et al: Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 13. Effect of simple structured noise on the detectability of simulated stenotic lesions. Med Phys 16:14-21, 1989
24. Chakraborty DP: Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data. Med Phys 16:561-568, 1989
25. Chakraborty DP, Eckert MP: Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images. Med Phys 22:133-143, 1995
26. Eckstein MP, Abbey CK, Bartoff JL: Model observer optimization of JPEG image compression. SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Image Percept Performance 3981:106-115, 2000