HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Suryanarayanan, S. Articles by D'Orsi, C. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Suryanarayanan, S. Articles by D'Orsi, C. J.

Detection of Simulated Microcalcifications in a Phantom with Digital Mammography: Effect of Pixel Size¹

¹ From the Winship Cancer Institute and Department of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1701 Uppergate Dr, Bldg C, Suite 5018, Atlanta, GA 30322 (S.S., A.K., S.V., I.S., C.J.D.); and Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (S.S., A.K., I.S.). Received June 6, 2006; revision requested August 7; revision received September 8; accepted October 5; final version accepted November 15. Supported in part by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (RO1-CA88792 and RO1-EB002123) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). Supported in part by an infrastructure grant from the Georgia Cancer Coalition (GCC). Address correspondence to A.K. (e-mail: akarell{at}emory.edu).

View larger version (193K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1a: ROI images (a) before and (b) after automatic contrast enhancement. Visibility of the corner disk is improved after enhancement.

View larger version (205K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1b: ROI images (a) before and (b) after automatic contrast enhancement. Visibility of the corner disk is improved after enhancement.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2a: Examples of percent correct detection characteristics obtained from one observer for disk diameters of (a) 0.31 and (b) 0.20 mm at various pixel sizes for a phantom thickness of 45 mm. Degradation in detection with increasing pixel size is observed. The solid lines are maximum likelihood estimated detection characteristics.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2b: Examples of percent correct detection characteristics obtained from one observer for disk diameters of (a) 0.31 and (b) 0.20 mm at various pixel sizes for a phantom thickness of 45 mm. Degradation in detection with increasing pixel size is observed. The solid lines are maximum likelihood estimated detection characteristics.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 3a: CD characteristics obtained at 62.5% detection threshold after averaging data from six observers for (a) 45-mm and (b) 58-mm phantom thickness conditions at 39-, 78-, and 100-µm pixel sizes. Lower (better) threshold CD characteristics at 39- and 78-µm pixel sizes are observed. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 3b: CD characteristics obtained at 62.5% detection threshold after averaging data from six observers for (a) 45-mm and (b) 58-mm phantom thickness conditions at 39-, 78-, and 100-µm pixel sizes. Lower (better) threshold CD characteristics at 39- and 78-µm pixel sizes are observed. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 4a: CD characteristics obtained at 62.5% detection threshold after averaging data from six observers for (a) 100-µm, (b) 78-µm, and (c) 39-µm pixel sizes at 45- and 58-mm phantom thickness conditions. Degradation in CD characteristics regardless of pixel size is observed. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 4b: CD characteristics obtained at 62.5% detection threshold after averaging data from six observers for (a) 100-µm, (b) 78-µm, and (c) 39-µm pixel sizes at 45- and 58-mm phantom thickness conditions. Degradation in CD characteristics regardless of pixel size is observed. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 4c: CD characteristics obtained at 62.5% detection threshold after averaging data from six observers for (a) 100-µm, (b) 78-µm, and (c) 39-µm pixel sizes at 45- and 58-mm phantom thickness conditions. Degradation in CD characteristics regardless of pixel size is observed. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.