ArticleAcademic radiology2022
Power Spectrum Analysis of Breast Parenchyma with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images in a Longitudinal Screening Cohort from Two Vendors.
Article in Academic radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiation exposure and screening yield by digital breast tomosynthesis compared to mammography: results of the TOSYMA Trial breast density related.European radiology · 2025Trial
- Image quality comparison of synthesized two-dimensional images and digital mammography in breast tomosynthesis: A quantitative analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Frequency-based texture analysis of non-Gaussian properties of digital breast tomosynthesis images and comparison across two vendors.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Non-Isocentric Geometry for Next-Generation Tomosynthesis With Super-Resolution.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2024Article
- Power-law Beta Calculations for Realistic Mammography Images from Egs_cbct Simulation.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesTo quantitatively compare breast parenchymal texture between two Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) vendors using images from the same patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive patients who had normal screening DBT exams performed in January 2018 from GE and normal screening DBT exams in adjacent years from Hologic. Power spectrum analysis was performed within the breast tissue region. The slope of a linear function between log-frequency and log-power, β, was derived as a quantitative measure of breast texture and compared within and across vendors along with secondary parameters (laterality, view, year, image format, and breast density) with correlation tests and t-tests.
resultsA total of 24,339 DBT slices or synthetic 2D images from 85 exams in 25 women were analyzed. Strong power-law behavior was verified from all images. Values of β d did not differ significantly for laterality, view, or year. Significant differences of β were observed across vendors for DBT images (Hologic: 3.4±0.2 vs GE: 3.1±0.2, 95% CI on difference: 0.27 to 0.30) and synthetic 2D images (Hologic: 2.7±0.3 vs GE: 3.0±0.2, 95% CI on difference: -0.36 to -0.27), and density groups with each vendor: scattered (GE: 3.0±0.3, Hologic: 3.3±0.3) vs. heterogeneous (GE: 3.2±0.2, Hologic: 3.4±0.1), 95% CI (-0.27, -0.08) and (-0.21, -0.05), respectively.
conclusionThere are quantitative differences in the presentation of breast imaging texture between DBT vendors and across breast density categories. Our findings have relevance and importance for development and optimization of AI algorithms related to breast density assessment and cancer detection.
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.