ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering
Assessment of Boundary Discrimination Performance in a Printed Phantom.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Printed phantoms hold great potential as a tool for examining task-based image quality of x-ray imaging systems. Their ability to produce complex shapes rendered in materials with adjustable attenuation coefficients allows a new level of flexibility in the design of tasks for the evaluation of physical imaging systems. We investigate performance in a fine "boundary discrimination" task in which fine features at the margin of a clearly visible "lesion" are used to classify the lesion as malignant or benign. These tasks are appealing because of their relevance to clinical tasks, and because they typically emphasize higher spatial frequencies relative to more common lesion detection tasks. A 3D printed phantom containing cylindrical shells of varying thickness was used to generate lesions profiles that differed in their edge profiles. This was intended to approximate lesions with indistinct margins that are clinically associated with malignancy. Wall thickness in the phantom ranged from 0.4mm to 0.8mm, which allows for task difficulty to be varied by choosing different thicknesses to represent malignant and benign lesions. The phantom was immersed in a tub filled with water and potassium phosphate to approximate the attenuating background, and imaged repeatedly on a benchtop cone-beam CT scanner. After preparing the image data (reconstruction, ROI Selection, sub-pixel registration), we find that the mean frequency of the lesion profile is 0.11 cyc/mm. The mean frequency of the lesion-difference profile, representative of the discrimination task, is approximately 6 times larger. Model observers show appropriate dose performance in these tasks as well.
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.