ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Phantom-based comparative analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography systems: Image quality and performance evaluation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Clinical significance of lesion conspicuity on contrast-enhanced mammography.European radiology · 2026Article
- Phantom-based comparative analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography systems: Image quality and performance evaluation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
purposeContrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a technique that exploits the combination of two projections at different energies to produce an energy-subtracted (ES) image to highlight the uptake of iodinated contrast medium in breast lesions. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the performance of different CEM systems.
methodsFour mammography systems of different vendors (Fujifilm Amulet Innovality, Hologic 3Dimensions, IMS Giotto Class, GE Senographe Pristina) were compared employing a commercial dedicated phantom, equipped with a breast-equivalent target slab with four different iodine concentrations (IC) inserts. Acquisition parameters and average glandular dose (AGD) were collected at different phantom thicknesses (30-80 mm). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and linearity of IC response with phantom thickness were evaluated.
resultsAGDs (mGy) were in ranges 0.82-3.10, 0.90-6.25, 1.08-3.30, and 0.74-3.63 for Fujifilm, Hologic, GE, and IMS, respectively. High-energy AGD accounted for up to 41.5%, 25.6%, 40.5%, and 23.8% of the total dose for Fujifilm, Hologic, IMS, and GE, respectively. CNR increased with IC and generally decreased with increasing phantom thickness. In recombined images, Hologic, Fujifilm, and GE showed good linearity of IC response with phantom thickness and overlapping trends (maximum error = 1%) for all thicknesses.
conclusionSimilarities and differences in image quality and dose were found depending on the different technical and image processing characteristics of the different vendors. Linearity of IC at various thicknesses might be further exploited in clinical scenarios to differentiate between suspicious breast lesions.
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.