ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Noise characteristics in synthetic mammography derived from digital breast tomosynthesis: a comparison with conventional digital mammography.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Synthetic mammography (SM) derived from digital breast tomosynthesis differs fundamentally from conventional digital mammography (DM) in noise characteristics; however, these differences remain poorly understood. This study aimed to comprehensively characterize the noise structures unique to SM and to clarify their physical origins through comparison with DM. SM and DM images were analyzed using a multi-perspective framework that integrated the normalized noise power spectrum (NPS), noise factor analysis based on the relative standard deviation method, subtraction-based analysis, and pixel-wise signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) maps. Directional NPS was evaluated to assess anisotropy, while subtracted images were used to distinguish fixed-pattern noise from processing-related noise. Noise factor analysis was applied to quantify Poisson, multiplicative, and additive noise contributions, and SNR maps derived from repeated acquisitions were used to evaluate pixel-level reproducibility. Compared with DM, SM images exhibited pronounced anisotropy and stronger spatial correlation in the NPS, reflecting structural noise introduced during image synthesis. The NPS of subtracted images closely matched that of the original SM images, indicating that the dominant noise components were not spatially fixed patterns but rather randomly generated structural texture noise. Noise factor analysis demonstrated that multiplicative noise dominated SM images across all dose levels. No clear differences were observed in the SNR maps, whereas the non-stationary nature of SM noise was confirmed. These results demonstrate that SM noise is dominated by randomly generated structural textures with strong spatial correlations. The findings further emphasize the need for multi-perspective and task-based approaches for accurate assessment and effective clinical utilization of SM images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42234325What 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.