ArticleAcademic radiology2015
Breast density evaluation using spectral mammography, radiologist reader assessment, and segmentation techniques: a retrospective study based on left and right breast comparison.
Article in Academic radiology, 2015. 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.
- Influence of Acquisition Parameters on Silver Sulfide Nanoparticle Contrast in Photon-Counting Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study.ACS applied nano materials · 2024Article
- Quantification of water and lipid density with dual-energy mammography: validation in postmortem breasts.European radiology · 2021Article
- Implementing Multilabeling, ADASYN, and ReliefF Techniques for Classification of Breast Cancer Diagnostic through Machine Learning: Efficient Computer-Aided Diagnostic System.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Qualitative Versus Quantitative Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: Applications for the US and Abroad.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the precision of mammographic breast density measurement using radiologist reader assessment, histogram threshold segmentation, fuzzy C-mean segmentation, and spectral material decomposition. MATERIALS AND
methodsSpectral mammography images from a total of 92 consecutive asymptomatic women (aged 50-69 years) who presented for annual screening mammography were retrospectively analyzed for this study. Breast density was estimated using 10 radiologist reader assessment, standard histogram thresholding, fuzzy C-mean algorithm, and spectral material decomposition. The breast density correlation between left and right breasts was used to assess the precision of these techniques to measure breast composition relative to dual-energy material decomposition.
resultsIn comparison to the other techniques, the results of breast density measurements using dual-energy material decomposition showed the highest correlation. The relative standard error of estimate for breast density measurements from left and right breasts using radiologist reader assessment, standard histogram thresholding, fuzzy C-mean algorithm, and dual-energy material decomposition was calculated to be 1.95, 2.87, 2.07, and 1.00, respectively.
conclusionsThe results indicate that the precision of dual-energy material decomposition was approximately factor of two higher than the other techniques with regard to better correlation of breast density measurements from right and left breasts.
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.