ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025
Exploring the impact of image restoration in simulating higher dose mammography: effects on the detectability of microcalcifications across different sizes using model observer analysis.
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 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.
- Introduction to the JMI Special Issue on Advances in Breast Imaging.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths among women, and digital mammography plays a key role in screening and early detection. The radiation dose on mammographic exams directly influences image quality and radiologists' performance. We evaluate the impact of an image restoration pipeline-designed to simulate higher dose acquisitions-on the detectability of microcalcifications of various sizes in mammograms acquired at different radiation doses. Approach: The restoration pipeline denoises the image using a Poisson-Gaussian noise model, combining it with the noisy image to achieve a signal-to-noise ratio comparable with an acquisition at twice the original dose. We created a database of images using a physical breast phantom at doses ranging from 50% to 200% of the standard dose. Clustered microcalcifications were computationally inserted into the phantom images. The channelized Hotelling observer was employed in a four-alternative forced-choice to evaluate the detectability of microcalcifications across different sizes and exposure levels. Results: The restoration of low-dose images acquired at Conclusions: We demonstrate the potential of an image restoration pipeline to simulate higher quality mammography images. The results indicate that reducing noise through denoising and restoration impacts the detectability of microcalcifications. This method improves image quality without hardware modifications or additional radiation exposure.
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.