ArticlePloS one2020
Human observer performance on in-plane digital breast tomosynthesis images: Effects of reconstruction filters and data acquisition angles on signal detection.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems, we investigate the effects of the reconstruction filters for different data acquisition angles on signal detection. We simulated a breast phantom with a 30% volume glandular fraction (VGF) of breast anatomy using the power law spectrum and modeled the breast mass as a spherical object with a 1 mm diameter. Projection data were acquired using two different data acquisition angles and numbers of projection view pairs, and in-plane breast images were reconstructed using the Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) algorithm with three different reconstruction filter schemes. To measure the ability to detect a signal, we conducted the human observer study with a binary detection task and compared the signal detectability of human to that of channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) with Laguerre-Gauss (LG) channels and dense difference-of-Gaussian (D-DOG) channels. We also measured the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal power spectrum (SPS), and β values of the anatomical noise power spectrum (NPS) to show the association between human observer performance and these traditional metrics. Our results show that using a slice thickness (ST) filter degraded the signal detection performance of human observers at the same data acquisition angle. This could be predicted by D-DOG CHO with internal noise, but the correlation between the traditional metrics and signal detectability was not observed in this work.
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.