ArticleBiomedical physics & engineering express2019
Visualizing microcalcifications in lumpectomy specimens: an exploration into the clinical potential of carbon nanotube-enabled
Article in Biomedical physics & engineering express, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the visibility of microcalcifications in images generated by a first-generation carbon-nanotube (CNT)-enabled
methodsLumpectomy specimens were imaged by magnified mammography and two 3D mammography approaches, including sDBT and moving-source DBT. The planar size of individual microcalcifications was measured in the reconstructed image stacks of sDBT and moving-source DBT and compared to the magnified mammography image. An artifact spread function (ASF) was used to assess the depth dimensions of the microcalcifications displayed through the reconstructed image stacks. Breast-imaging specialists rated their preference for one imaging modality over another when interpreting microcalcifications in the magnified mammography image and synthetic slab images from sDBT and moving-source DBT.
resultsThe planar size of individual microcalcifications was similar in images generated by sDBT and moving-source DBT when the sDBT projections were binned to match the pixel size used by the moving-source DBT system. However, the unique structure of sDBT allowed for a wider-angle span of projection views and operation of the detector in full-resolution mode without significantly compromising the scan time. In this configuration, the planar sizes of individual microcalcifications displayed by sDBT was more similar to magnified mammography than moving-source DBT, and the microcalcifications had a narrower ASF through depth. Readers preferred sDBT over moving-source DBT when assessing microcalcifications in synthetic slab images, although magnified mammography was rated highest overall.
conclusionsThe sDBT system displayed microcalcifications as well as conventional, moving-source DBT when the effective pixel size of the detector was matched. However, with the detector in its full-resolution mode, sDBT displayed microcalcifications with greater clarity. Readers still preferred images generated by magnified mammography over both 3D mammography approaches. This finding is guiding continued hardware and software development to optimize the sDBT 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.