These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Computed radiography versus screen-film mammography in detection of simulated microcalcifications: a receiver operating characteristic study based on phantom images.
    Author: Shaw CC, Wang T, King JL, Breitenstein DS, Chang TS, Harris KM, Baratz AB, Ganott MA, Reginella R, Sumkin JH, Gur D.
    Journal: Acad Radiol; 1998 Mar; 5(3):173-80. PubMed ID: 9522883.
    Abstract:
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors compare a 43-micron computed radiographic system with a mammographic screen-film system for detection of simulated microcalcifications in an observer-performance study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The task of detecting microcalcifications was simulated by imaging aluminum wire segments (200-500 microns in length; 100, 125, or 150 microns in diameter) that overlapped with tissue background structures produced by beef brisket. A total of 288 such simulations were generated and examined with both computed radiography and conventional screen-film mammography techniques. Computed radiography was performed with high-resolution plates, a 43-micron image reader, and a 43-micron laser film printer. Computed radiographic images were printed with simple contrast enhancement and compared with screen-film images in a receiver operating characteristic study in which experienced readers detected and scored the simulated microcalcifications. Observer performance was quantitated and compared by computing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Although the resolution of the computed radiography system was better than that of commercial systems, it fell short of that of screen-film systems. For the 100-micron microcalcifications, the difference in the average area under the curve was not statistically significant, but it was significant for the larger simulated microcalcifications: the average area under the curve was 0.58 for computed radiography versus 0.76 for screen-film imaging for the 125-micron microcalcifications and 0.83 versus 1.00, respectively, for the 150-micron microcalcifications. CONCLUSION: Observer performance in the detection of small simulated microcalcifications (100-150 microns in diameter) is better with screen-film images than with high-resolution computed radiographic images.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]