Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems

Young, Kenneth C.; Cook, J.P.; Oduko, Jennifer M.; Bosmans, Hilde

doi:10.1117/12.653296

Cited by 67 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only for one The EUREF software in the fi rst stage of the analysis smoothed the data by applying a Gaussian function [3] while the Artinis software does not apply any smoothing of the data. Moreover, the Artinis software does not fi t psychometric curve and third degree polynomial to dependence of threshold gold thickness on the diameter of structures.…”

Section: Differences Between the Results Obtained With The Artinis Somentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another one is the Guildford CDMAM Analyser (later referred to as 'EUREF software'), which is freely available on the website of the European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services. The EUREF software uses the CDCOM exe fi le [10] as a core component and performs the analysis with methods described by Young et al [3]. The Artinis software uses the CDCOM exe fi le, as well as the EUREF software.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The threshold contrast thickness evaluated with different CDMAM phantoms and software

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The image quality in digital mammography is described by specifying the thickness and diameter of disks with threshold visibility. The European Commission recommends the CDMAM phantom as a tool to evaluate threshold contrast visibility in digital mammography [1, 2]. Inaccuracy of the manufacturing process of CDMAM 3.4 phantoms (Artinis Medical System BV), as well as differences between software used to analyze the images, may lead to discrepancies in the evaluation of threshold contrast visibility. The authors of this work used three CDMAM 3.4 phantoms with serial numbers 1669, 1840, and 1841 and two mammography systems of the same manufacturer with an identical types of detectors. The images were analyzed with EUREF software (version 1.5.5 with CDCOM 1.6. exe file) and Artinis software (version 1.2 with CDCOM 1.6. exe file). The differences between the observed thicknesses of the threshold contrast structures, which were caused by differences between the CDMAM 3.4 phantoms, were not reproduced in the same way on two mammography units of the same type. The thickness reported by the Artinis software (version 1.2 with CDCOM 1.6. exe file) was generally greater than the one determined by the EUREF software (version 1.5.5 with CDCOM 1.6. exe file), but the ratio of the results depended on the phantom and diameter of the structure. It was not possible to establish correction factors, which would allow correction of the differences between the results obtained for different CDMAM 3.4 phantoms, or to correct the differences between software. Great care must be taken when results of the tests performed with different CDMAM 3.4 phantoms and with different software application are interpreted.

show abstract

Section: Differences Between the Results Obtained With The Artinis Somentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The threshold contrast thickness evaluated with different CDMAM phantoms and software

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The contrast detail curve is then calculated by curve fitting (fit to predicted gold thickness) via a 3 rd degree polynomial. The software uses the method of Young et al (UK method) for this [18].…”

Section: Automatic Evaluation Of the Test Object Exposuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guideline for Determining the Mean Glandular Dose According to DIN 6868-162 and Threshold Contrast Visibility According to the Quality Assurance Guideline for Digital Mammography Systems

Sommer

Schopphoven²,

Land³

et al. 2014

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of the physico-technical quality assurance of the German breast cancer screening program, the threshold contrast visibility and the average glandular dose of every digital mammography system have to fulfill the?requirements of the ?European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis? (4th Edition). To accomplish uniform measurements in all federal states of Germany, the physical board of the reference centers developed a special guideline in 2009. Due to recent changes in the guidelines and standards, a second version of the guideline was developed by the reference centers. This guideline describes the determination of the average glandular dose as well as the CDMAM image acquisition and the CDMAM image evaluation. The determination of the threshold contrast visibility can be performed visually or automatically. The determination of the average glandular dose is based on DIN?6868???162 and the threshold contrast visibility test is based on the German ?Quality Assurance Guideline?. Key Points: ??Update of the first guideline due recent changes in the national standards ??Description of the procedure for determining the average glandular dose according to DIN 6868-162 ??Description of the procedure for determining the threshold contrast visibility according to the Quality Assurance Guideline ??In addition to the visual evaluation of the threshold contrast visibility, an automatic evaluation method can be used Citation Format: ??Sommer A, Schopphoven S, Land I et?al. Guideline for Determining the Mean Glandular Dose According to DIN 6868-162 and Threshold Contrast Visibility According to the Quality Assurance Guideline for Digital Mammography Systems. Fortschr R?ntgenstr 2014; 186: 474???481

show abstract

“…The scoring results were processed as outlined by previous authors [10][11][12] to produce contrast-detail curves. Young et al 11,12 outlines a method to adjust automated scoring to predict human observer readings. However, for this work, all results were left unmodified, human and automated, thus only 'raw' results were compared for all contrast-detail curves.…”

Section: Contrast Detail Scoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated scoring method for the CDMAM phantom

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CDMAM phantoms are widely used in the Europe to assess the performance of mammography systems utilising small size and low contrast disc details. However, the assessment of CDMAM images by human observers is slow and tedious. An automated method for scoring CDMAM images (CDCOM) is widely available to address this issue. We have developed an alternative automated scoring tool to score CDMAM images, Quantitative Assessment System (QAS), for similarly removing inter-and intra-observer variability. This provides additional valuable information about the contrast and SNR of each gold disc within the image. The QAS scores CDMAM phantom images using a scanning algorithm. QAS scoring results were compared with human observers and with CDCOM. It was found that QAS was comparable with human observers in scoring, whereas CDCOM consistently scored a higher number of discs correctly in CDMAM images compared with QAS and human observers.QAS results have been used to analyse the effects of different digital mammography system modulation transfer functions (MTFs) on fine details for a number of systems in the form of contrast degradation factor (CDF) measurements. CDF curves for experimentally acquired CDMAM images were compared with those for simulated CDMAM images to assess the accuracy of contrast measurements.

show abstract

Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems

Cited by 67 publications

References 3 publications

The threshold contrast thickness evaluated with different CDMAM phantoms and software

The threshold contrast thickness evaluated with different CDMAM phantoms and software

Guideline for Determining the Mean Glandular Dose According to DIN 6868-162 and Threshold Contrast Visibility According to the Quality Assurance Guideline for Digital Mammography Systems

Automated scoring method for the CDMAM phantom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About