Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29254355›Full record

ArticleActa radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987)2018

New reconstruction algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis: better image quality for humans and computers.

Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz, Jonas Teuwen, Suzan Vreemann, Ramona W Bouwman, Ruben E van Engen, Nico Karssemeijer, Ritse M Mann, Albert Gubern-Merida, Ioannis Sechopoulos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Full Wave Inversion and Inverse Scattering in Ultrasound Tomography/Volography.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Change and consistency inActa radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Artificial Intelligence and Radiomics in Head and Neck Cancer Care: Opportunities, Mechanics, and Challenges.American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7554-5561
Jonas Teuwen1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Suzan Vreemann1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Ramona W Bouwman2 Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Ruben E van Engen2 Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Nico Karssemeijer1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Ritse M Mann1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Albert Gubern-Merida1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Ioannis Sechopoulos1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The image quality of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) volumes depends greatly on the reconstruction algorithm. Purpose To compare two DBT reconstruction algorithms used by the Siemens Mammomat Inspiration system, filtered back projection (FBP), and FBP with iterative optimizations (EMPIRE), using qualitative analysis by human readers and detection performance of machine learning algorithms. Material and Methods Visual grading analysis was performed by four readers specialized in breast imaging who scored 100 cases reconstructed with both algorithms (70 lesions). Scoring (5-point scale: 1 = poor to 5 = excellent quality) was performed on presence of noise and artifacts, visualization of skin-line and Cooper's ligaments, contrast, and image quality, and, when present, lesion visibility. In parallel, a three-dimensional deep-learning convolutional neural network (3D-CNN) was trained (n = 259 patients, 51 positives with BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 calcifications) and tested (n = 46 patients, nine positives), separately with FBP and EMPIRE volumes, to discriminate between samples with and without calcifications. The partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (pAUC) of each 3D-CNN was used for comparison. Results EMPIRE reconstructions showed better contrast (3.23 vs. 3.10, P = 0.010), image quality (3.22 vs. 3.03, P < 0.001), visibility of calcifications (3.53 vs. 3.37, P = 0.053, significant for one reader), and fewer artifacts (3.26 vs. 2.97, P < 0.001). The 3D-CNN-EMPIRE had better performance than 3D-CNN-FBP (pAUC-EMPIRE = 0.880 vs. pAUC-FBP = 0.857; P < 0.001). Conclusion The new algorithm provides DBT volumes with better contrast and image quality, fewer artifacts, and improved visibility of calcifications for human observers, as well as improved detection performance with deep-learning algorithms.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtifactsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMachine LearningMammographyRadiographic Image EnhancementRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisteddeep learningDigital breast tomosynthesisreconstruction algorithmsvisual grading analysis

Identifiers

PMID29254355
PMCPMC6088454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.