ArticlePloS one2022
Effect of optical blurring of X-ray source on breast tomosynthesis image quality: Modulation transfer function, anatomical noise power spectrum, and signal detectability perspectives.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Evaluation of the flying focal spot technology in a wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis system.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- X-ray source motion blur modeling and deblurring with generative diffusion for digital breast tomosynthesis.Physics in medicine and biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the effect of the optical blurring of X-ray source on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) image quality using well-designed DBT simulator and table-top experimental systems. To measure the in-plane modulation transfer function (MTF), we used simulated sphere phantom and Teflon sphere phantom and generated their projection data using two acquisition modes (i.e., step-and-shoot mode and continuous mode). After reconstruction, we measured the in-plane MTF using reconstructed sphere phantom images. In addition, we measured the anatomical noise power spectrum (aNPS) and signal detectability. We constructed simulated breast phantoms with a 50% volume glandular fraction (VGF) of breast anatomy using the power law spectrum and inserted spherical objects with 1 mm, 2 mm, and 5 mm diameters as breast masses. Projection data were acquired using two acquisition modes, and in-plane breast images were reconstructed using the Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) algorithm. For the experimental study, we used BR3D breast phantom with 50% VGF and obtained projection data using a table-top experimental system. To compare the detection performance of the two acquisition modes, we calculated the signal detectability using the channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) with Laguerre-Gauss (LG) channels. Our results show that spatial resolution of in-plane image in continuous mode was degraded due to the optical blurring of X-ray source. This blurring effect was reflected in aNPS, resulting in large β values. From a signal detectability perspective, the signal detectability in step-and-shoot mode is higher than that in continuous mode for small spherical signals but not large spherical signals. Although the step-and-shoot mode has disadvantage in terms of scan time compared to the continuous mode, scanning in step-and-shoot mode is better for detecting small signals, indicating that there is a tradeoff between scan time and image quality.
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.