ArticleRadiological physics and technology2024
Modulation transfer function of digital breast tomosynthesis: a comparison of various edge devices.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improved MTF Measurement of Medical Flat-Panel Detectors Based on a Slit Model.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The modulation transfer function (MTF) is a fundamental tool for assessing the sharpness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems and is primarily measured using edge devices. We compared the MTF of a Senographe Pristina DBT system using four-edge devices. These devices were composed of stainless steel with a thickness of 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 mm, and 1.0 mm tungsten, based on different international guidelines. We evaluated spatial frequencies at MTFs of 0.5 (MTF50%) and 0.1 (MTF10%). The collimator-equipped and non-collimator configurations of the DBT were compared. We found no appreciable differences between scan and chest wall-nipple directions. Both MTF50% (2.90-2.99 cycles/mm) and MTF10% (6.69-6.94 cycles/mm) demonstrated minimal variation across the different edge devices. The collimator-equipped system exhibited an MTF50% that was approximately 5% higher than that of the non-collimator configuration. The choice of the edge device did not appreciably impact the MTF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38780698What 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.