ArticleMedical physics2010
Dynamic multiple thresholding breast boundary detection algorithm for mammograms.
Article in Medical physics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mass Detection and Segmentation in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Using 3D-Mask Region-Based Convolutional Neural Network: A Comparative Analysis.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Article
- Detector Blur and Correlated Noise Modeling for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Reconstruction.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2018Article
- Improving image quality for digital breast tomosynthesis: an automated detection and diffusion-based method for metal artifact reduction.Physics in medicine and biology · 2017Article
- CT-PET weighted image fusion for separately scanned whole body rat.Medical physics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAutomated detection of breast boundary is one of the fundamental steps for computer-aided analysis of mammograms. In this study, the authors developed a new dynamic multiple thresholding based breast boundary (MTBB) detection method for digitized mammograms.
methodsA large data set of 716 screen-film mammograms (442 CC view and 274 MLO view) obtained from consecutive cases of an Institutional Review Board approved project were used. An experienced breast radiologist manually traced the breast boundary on each digitized image using a graphical interface to provide a reference standard. The initial breast boundary (MTBB-Initial) was obtained by dynamically adapting the threshold to the gray level range in local regions of the breast periphery. The initial breast boundary was then refined by using gradient information from horizontal and vertical Sobel filtering to obtain the final breast boundary (MTBB-Final). The accuracy of the breast boundary detection algorithm was evaluated by comparison with the reference standard using three performance metrics: The Hausdorff distance (HDist), the average minimum Euclidean distance (AMinDist), and the area overlap measure (AOM).
resultsIn comparison with the authors' previously developed gradient-based breast boundary (GBB) algorithm, it was found that 68%, 85%, and 94% of images had HDist errors less than 6 pixels (4.8 mm) for GBB, MTBB-Initial, and MTBB-Final, respectively. 89%, 90%, and 96% of images had AMinDist errors less than 1.5 pixels (1.2 mm) for GBB, MTBB-Initial, and MTBB-Final, respectively. 96%, 98%, and 99% of images had AOM values larger than 0.9 for GBB, MTBB-Initial, and MTBB-Final, respectively. The improvement by the MTBB-Final method was statistically significant for all the evaluation measures by the Wilcoxon signed rank test (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe MTBB approach that combined dynamic multiple thresholding and gradient information provided better performance than the breast boundary detection algorithm that mainly used gradient information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.