ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024
Technical feasibility of automated blur detection in digital mammography using convolutional neural network.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe presence of a blurred area, depending on its localization, in a mammogram can limit diagnostic accuracy. The goal of this study was to develop a model for automatic detection of blur in diagnostically relevant locations in digital mammography.
methodsA retrospective dataset consisting of 152 examinations acquired with mammography machines from three different vendors was utilized. The blurred areas were contoured by expert breast radiologists. Normalized Wiener spectra (nWS) were extracted in a sliding window manner from each mammogram. These spectra served as input for a convolutional neural network (CNN) generating the probability of the spectra originating from a blurred region. The resulting blur probability mask, upon thresholding, facilitated the classification of a mammogram as either blurred or sharp. Ground truth for the test set was defined by the consensus of two radiologists.
resultsA significant correlation between the view (p < 0.001), as well as between the laterality and the presence of blur (p = 0.004) was identified. The developed model AUROC of 0.808 (95% confidence interval 0.794-0.821) aligned with the consensus in 78% (67-83%) of mammograms classified as blurred. For mammograms classified by consensus as sharp, the model achieved agreement in 75% (67-83%) of them.
conclusionA model for blur detection was developed and assessed. The results indicate that a robust approach to blur detection, based on feature extraction in frequency space, tailored to radiologist expertise regarding clinical relevance, could eliminate the subjectivity associated with the visual assessment. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This blur detection model, if implemented in clinical practice, could provide instantaneous feedback to technicians, allowing for prompt mammogram retakes and ensuring that only high-quality mammograms are sent for screening and diagnostic tasks. KEY POINTS: Blurring in mammography limits radiologist interpretation and diagnostic accuracy. This objective blur detection tool ensures image quality, and reduces retakes and unnecessary exposures. Wiener spectrum analysis and CNN enabled automated blur detection in mammography.
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.