ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2019
Objective assessment of task performance: a comparison of two FFDM detectors using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dependence of observer task on conclusions drawn fromJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Characterization of a GaAs photon-counting detector for mammography.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current digital mammography systems primarily employ one of two types of detectors: indirect conversion, typically using a cesium-iodine scintillator integrated with an amorphous silicon photodiode matrix, or direct conversion, using a photoconductive layer of amorphous selenium (a-Se) combined with thin-film transistor array. The goal of this study was to evaluate a methodology for objectively assessing image quality to compare human observer task performance in detecting microcalcification clusters and extended mass-like lesions achieved with different detector types. The proposed assessment methodology uses a novel anthropomorphic breast phantom fabricated with ink-jet printing. In addition to human observer detection performance, standard linear metrics such as modulation transfer function, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) were also measured to assess image quality. An Analogic Anrad AXS-2430 a-Se detector used in a commercial FFDM/DBT system and a Teledyne Dalsa Xineos-2329 with CMOS pixel readout were evaluated and compared. The DQE of each detector was similar over a range of exposures. Similar task performance in detecting microcalcifications and masses was observed between the two detectors over a range of clinically applicable dose levels, with some perplexing differences in the detection of microcalcifications at the lowest dose measurement. The evaluation approach presented seems promising as a new technique for objective assessment of breast imaging technology.
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.