ArticleArXiv2024
Examining the Influence of Digital Phantom Models in Virtual Imaging Trials for Tomographic Breast Imaging.
Article in ArXiv, 2024. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Digital phantoms are one of the key components of virtual imaging trials (VITs) that aims to assess and optimize new medical imaging systems and algorithms. However, these phantoms vary in their voxel resolution, appearance and structural details. This study aims to examine whether and how variations between digital phantoms influence system optimization with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a chosen modality. Methods: We selected widely used and open access digital breast phantoms generated with different methods. For each phantom type, we created an ensemble of DBT images to test acquisition strategies. Human observer localization ROC (LROC) was used to assess observer performance studies for each case. Noise power spectrum (NPS) was estimated to compare the phantom structural components. Further, we computed several gaze metrics to quantify the gaze pattern when viewing images generated from different phantom types. Results: Our LROC results show that the arc samplings for peak performance were approximately 2.5° and 6° in Bakic and XCAT breast phantoms respectively for 3-mm lesion detection task and indicate that system optimization outcomes from VITs can vary with phantom types and structural frequency components. Additionally, a significant correlation (p¡0.01) between gaze metrics and diagnostic performance suggests that gaze analysis can be used to understand and evaluate task difficulty in VITs. Conclusion: Our results point to the critical need to evaluate realism in digital phantoms as well as ensuring sufficient structural variations at spatial frequencies relevant to the signal size for an intended task. In addition, standardizing phantom generation and validation tools might aid in lower discrepancies among independently conducted VITs for system or algorithmic optimizations.
Identifiers
38351932PMC10862940What 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.