Using a npwe model observer to assess suitable image quality for a digital mammography quality assurance programme

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 139, Issue 1-3, 2010, Pages 459-462

  Monnin, P ^a,b   Bochud, F O ^a   Verdun, F R ^a  

^a LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

^b Haute Ecole Cantonale Vaudoise de la Santé HECVSanté   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; SWITZERLAND;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 77953471172     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq010     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. The European protocol for the quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening. CEC Report EUR 14821 (1993).
2. de Wolf, C. J. M. and Perry, N. M. (eds). European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening, second edn. (Luxembourg: European Commission, Europe against Cancer Programme) (1996).
3. Hendrick, R. E. et al. Mammography Quality Control: Radiologist's Manual, Radiologic Technologist's Manual, Medical Physicist's Manual. (Reston., VA: American College of Radiology) (1990).
4. Kopans, D. B. et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS), first edn (Reston, VA: American College of Radiology) (1993).
5. Van Metter, R., Heath, M. and Fletcher-Heath, L. Applying the European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening threshold contrast visibility assessment to digital systems. Proc. SPIE 6142, 18-38 (2006).
6. Fletcher-Heath, L. and Van Metter, R. Quantifying the performance of human and software CDMAM phantom image observers for the qualification of digital mammography systems. Proc. SPIE 5745, 486-498 (2005).
7. Marshall, N. W. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system. Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 2441-2463 (2006).
8. Segui, J. A. and Zhao, W. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments. Med. Phys. 33, 3711-3721 (2006).
9. Wagner, R. F., Brown, D. G. and Pastel, M. S. Application of information theory to the assessment of computed tomography. Med. Phys. 6, 83-94 (1979).
10. Burgess, A. E. Statistically defined backgrounds: performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. 11, 1237-1242 (1994).
11. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 62220-1-2 2005 Medical Electrical Equipment - Characteristics of Digital X-ray Imaging Devices - Part 1-2: Determination of the Detective Quantum Efficiency - Mammography Detectors (Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission).
12. Desponds, L., Depeursinge, C., Grecescu, M., Hessler, C., Samiri, A. and Valley, J.-F. Image quality index (IQI) for screen-film mammography. Phys. Med. Biol. 36, 19-33 (1991).
13. Thomas, J. A., Chakrabarti, K., Kaczmarek, R. and Romanyukha, A. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology. Med. Phys. 32, 807-814 (2005).