ArticleActa radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987)2018
New reconstruction algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis: better image quality for humans and computers.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning, radiomics and radiogenomics applications in the digital breast tomosynthesis: a systematic review.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Pooled it
- Deep Learning in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Trends.MedComm · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the flying focal spot technology in a wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis system.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- A Competition, Benchmark, Code, and Data for Using Artificial Intelligence to Detect Lesions in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Full Wave Inversion and Inverse Scattering in Ultrasound Tomography/Volography.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Automatic Classification of Simulated Breast Tomosynthesis Whole Images for the Presence of Microcalcification Clusters Using Deep CNNs.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- Automated Breast Cancer Detection Models Based on Transfer Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Change and consistency inActa radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2021Article
- Impact of artificial intelligence support on accuracy and reading time in breast tomosynthesis image interpretation: a multi-reader multi-case study.European radiology · 2021Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.Radiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.