ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025
Dependence of observer task on conclusions drawn from
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approximating the ideal observer for joint signal detection and estimation tasks by the use of Markov-Chain Monte Carlo with generative adversarial networks.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Introduction to the Special Issue: Celebrating Digital Tomosynthesis-Past, Present, and Future.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We aim to refine the task-based evaluation of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) through Approach: The shape of the masses was employed as a surrogate indicator for malignancy, with spiculated masses representing malignant lesions and lobular masses representing benign lesions. A convolutional neural network (CNN) model observer was then trained to differentiate between spiculated and nonspiculated masses using Monte Carlo-simulated breast images. This approach leverages prior research demonstrating that CNN-based frameworks can approximate the performance of an ideal observer. We systematically evaluated the effects of varying dose levels, detector pixel size, and projection angular range on the CNN model observer's performance in both detection and classification tasks, assessing the performance of both FFDM and DBT systems. Results: Our findings demonstrate significant variations in conclusions drawn from IST models depending on whether the task is lesion detection or classification. Specifically, we observed that varying average glandular dose levels from 2.0 to 0.5 mGy had little effect on the detection of masses, whereas a small but significant decrease in performance with reduced dose was observed with the classification task across FFDM and DBT. Similarly, reduced spatial resolution resulted in a small but significant decrease in performance with the classification task for FFDM. For DBT ISTs, we also observed that the preferred angular range varies depending on whether the task is detection or classification. Conclusions: Integrating classification tasks into ISTs and potentially physical phantom studies can provide additional information in the evaluation of clinical breast imaging systems. This methodology can enhance the reliability of performance assessments for new breast imaging technologies. Depending on the study's objective, ISTs and physical phantom studies should aim to employ tasks that closely model actual clinical scenarios.
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.