ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Image quality comparison of synthesized two-dimensional images and digital mammography in breast tomosynthesis: A quantitative analysis.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early detection of breast cancer using high-quality mammography is essential for improving prognosis and treatment outcomes. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional mammography (SM) reduces dose and tissue overlap; however, its comprehensive physical evaluations remain limited. PURPOSE: This study quantitatively compared the image quality of conventional digital mammography (DM) and SM acquired using the AMULET Innovality System.
methodsPolymethyl methacrylate, American College of Radiology, and contrast-detail (CD) mammography phantoms were imaged 10 times in both DM and SM modes. Image quality metrics, including signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) maps, noise power spectrum (NPS), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF), and CD curves, were evaluated.
resultsDM demonstrated higher SNR uniformity and suppressed low- and high-frequency noise, and the CNR values were 1.3-2 times greater than those of SM across all object sizes. MTF analysis showed superior resolution in DM (MTF(f50), 4.0 cycles/mm) compared with that of the SM (2.5 cycles/mm). CD curve analysis confirmed the better detectability of fine structures in DM, with
conclusionsQuantitative phantom-based evaluation demonstrated that DM showed superior performance to SM in several physical image quality metrics, including SNR uniformity, noise characteristics, spatial resolution, and contrast-detail detectability. These findings indicate systematic differences in physical image quality between DM and SM; however, further observer and clinical studies are required to clarify how these differences translate to diagnostic performance in clinical practice.
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.