ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024
Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generating synthetic CEM from low-energy images using deep learning: A future without contrast media? A proof-of-concept study.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Local Diagnostic Reference Levels in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Phantom-based comparative analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography systems: Image quality and performance evaluation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Deep Learning in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Trends.MedComm · 2025Review
- A Critical Appraisal of System-Reported Organ Dose (OD) Versus Manually Calculated Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) in Dubai's Mammography Services.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Performance of dual-energy subtraction in contrast-enhanced mammography for three different manufacturers: a phantom study.European radiology experimental · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutomatic exposure control (AEC) plays a crucial role in mammography by determining the exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality based on the absorption characteristics of compressed breasts. This study aimed to characterize the behavior of AEC for digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) acquisitions used in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for three mammography systems from two manufacturers.
methodsUsing phantoms simulating various breast thicknesses, 363 studies were acquired using all available AEC modes 165 DM, 132 DBT, and 66 LE-CEM and HE-CEM. AEC behaviors were compared across systems and modalities to assess the impact of different technical components and manufacturers' strategies on the resulting mean glandular doses (MGDs) and image quality metrics such as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).
resultsFor all systems and modalities, AEC increased MGD for increasing phantom thicknesses and decreased CNR. The median MGD values (interquartile ranges) were 1.135 mGy (0.772-1.668) for DM, 1.257 mGy (0.971-1.863) for DBT, 1.280 mGy (0.937-1.878) for LE-CEM, and 0.630 mGy (0.397-0.713) for HE-CEM. Medians CNRs were 14.2 (7.8-20.2) for DM, 4.91 (2.58-7.20) for a single projection in DBT, 11.9 (8.0-18.2) for LE-CEM, and 5.2 (3.6-9.2) for HE-CEM. AECs showed high repeatability, with variations lower than 5% for all modes in DM, DBT, and CEM.
conclusionsThe study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior between systems, modalities, and AEC modes, influenced by technical components and manufacturers' strategies, with potential implications in radiation dose and image quality in clinical settings. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The study emphasized the central role of automatic exposure control in DM, DBT, and CEM acquisitions and the great variability in dose and image quality among manufacturers and between modalities. Caution is needed when generalizing conclusions about differences across mammography modalities. KEY POINTS: • AEC plays a crucial role in DM, DBT, and CEM. • AEC determines the "optimal" exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality. • The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior, influenced by differences in technical components and strategies.
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.