ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Blurred digital mammography images: an analysis of technical recall and observer detection performance.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technical feasibility of automated blur detection in digital mammography using convolutional neural network.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Deep learning versus the human visual system for detecting motion blur in radiography.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2022Article
- Article
- Characterization of radiographers' mammography practice in five European countries: a pilot study.Insights into imaging · 2019Article
- Analysis of Technical Repeat Studies in Screening Mammography.Journal of breast imagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBlurred images in full-field digital mammography are a problem in the UK Breast Screening Programme. Technical recalls may be due to blurring not being seen on lower resolution monitors used for review. This study assesses the visual detection of blurring on a 2.3-MP monitor and a 5-MP report grade monitor and proposes an observer standard for the visual detection of blurring on a 5-MP reporting grade monitor.
methods28 observers assessed 120 images for blurring; 20 images had no blurring present, whereas 100 images had blurring imposed through mathematical simulation at 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 mm levels of motion. Technical recall rate for both monitors and angular size at each level of motion were calculated. χ
resultsThe technical recall rate for 2.3- and 5-MP monitors are 20.3% and 9.1%, respectively. The angular size for 0.2- to 1-mm motion varied from 55 to 275 arc s. The minimum amount of motion for visual detection of blurring in this study is 0.4 mm. For 0.2-mm simulated motion, there was no significant difference [χ
conclusionAccording to this study, monitors ≤2.3 MP are not suitable for technical review of full-field digital mammography images for the detection of blur. Advances in knowledge: This research proposes the first observer standard for the visual detection of blurring.
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.