Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36076142›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2022

Detectability of category 3 or higher microcalcifications on digital mammograms: a comparative study between 5-MP color and monochrome liquid crystal display monitors.

Emi Awamoto, Shinichi Awamoto, Noriko Mizoguchi, Toyoyuki Kato

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emi AwamotoDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. ishibashi.emi.424@m.kyushu-u.ac.jp.
Shinichi AwamotoDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Noriko MizoguchiDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Toyoyuki KatoDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study explored the detectability of category 3 or higher microcalcifications using 5-MP color and monochrome monitors. Contrast detail mammography phantom with polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) images were observed in color and monochrome by five radiographers, and the image quality figures (IQF) were calculated based on the gold disc locations identified. Five radiographers and two radiologists observed 200 mammograms from 100 patients (including 36 with microcalcifications) and rated the microcalcifications. The results were analyzed using area under the curve (AUC) and jackknife resampling. A paired t test was used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05). The mean IQF of color and monochrome monitors were 10.73 and 10.49 (30 mm PMMA, p = 0.653) and 8.47 and 8.74 (50 mm PMMA, p = 0.774), respectively. The mean AUC of color and monochrome monitors were 0.917 and 0.936 (p = 0.335), respectively, with windowing and magnification. The detectability of microcalcifications was not significantly different between the monitors.

Indexed as

CalcinosisLiquid CrystalsHumansMammographyPhantoms, ImagingPolymethyl MethacrylateRadiographic Image EnhancementPolymethyl MethacrylateCDMAM phantomColor monitorDetectabilityDigital mammographyMicrocalcificationsMonochrome monitor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.