4.6 Article

Validation of simulation of calcifications for observer studies in digital mammography

Journal

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue 16, Pages N217-N228

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/16/N217

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Cancer Research-UK
  2. EPSRC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies using simulated calcifications can be performed to measure the effect of different imaging factors on calcification detection in digital mammography. The simulated calcifications must be inserted into clinical images with realistic contrast and sharpness. MoCa is a program which modifies the contrast and sharpness of simulated calcification clusters extracted from images of mastectomy specimens acquired on a digital specimen cabinet at high magnification for insertion into clinical mammography images. This work determines whether the use of MoCa results in simulated calcifications with the correct contrast and sharpness. Aluminium foils (thickness 0.1-0.4 mm) and 1.60 mu m thick gold discs (diameter 0.13-0.8 mm) on 0.5 mm aluminium were imaged with a range of thicknesses of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) using an amorphous selenium direct digital (DR) system and a powder phosphor computed radiography (CR) system (real images). Simulated images of the tests objects were also generated using MoCa. The contrast of the aluminium squares and the degradation of the contrast of the gold discs as a function of disc diameter were compared in the real and simulated images. The average ratios of the simulated-to-real aluminium contrasts over all aluminium and PMMA thicknesses were 1.03 +/- 0.04 (two standard errors in the mean) and 0.99 +/- 0.03 for the DR and CR systems, respectively. The ratio of the simulated-to-real degradations of contrast averaged over all disc diameters and PMMA thicknesses were 1.007 +/- 0.008 and 1.002 +/- 0.013 for DR and CR, respectively. The use of MoCa was accurate within the experimental errors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available