Linked Life Data

12349926

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/12349926

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
9
pubmed:dateCreated
2002-9-27
pubmed:abstractText
Amorphous silicon/cesium iodide (a-Si:H/CsI:Tl) flat-panel (FP)-based full-field digital mammography systems have recently become commercially available for clinical use. Some investigations on physical properties and imaging characteristics of these types of detectors have been conducted and reported. In this perception study, a phantom containing simulated microcalcifications (microCs) of various sizes was imaged with four detector systems: a FP system, a small field-of-view charge coupled device (CCD) system, a high resolution computed radiography (CR) system, and a conventional mammography screen/film (SF) system. The images were reviewed by mammographers as well as nonradiologist participants. Scores reflecting confidence ratings were given and recorded for each detection task. The results were used to determine the average confidence-rating scores for the four imaging systems. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was also performed to evaluate and compare the overall detection accuracy for the four detector systems. For calcifications of 125-140 microm in size, the FP system was found to have the best performance with the highest confidence-rating scores and the greatest detection accuracy (Az = 0.9) in the ROC analysis. The SF system was ranked second while the CCD system outperformed the CR system. The p values obtained by applying a Student t-test to the results of the ROC analysis indicate that the differences between any two systems are statistically significant (p<0.005). Differences in microC detectability for the large (150-160 microm) and small (112-125 microm) size microC groups showed a wider range of p values (not all p values are smaller than 0.005, ranging from 0.6 to <0.001) compared to the p values obtained for the medium (125-140 microm) size microC group. Using the p values to assess the statistical significance, the use of the average confidence-rating scores was not as significant as the use of the ROC analysis p value for p value.
pubmed:grant
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Sep
pubmed:issn
0094-2405
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
29
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
2052-61
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-14
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2002
pubmed:articleTitle
Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston 77030-4009, USA. jrong@di.mdacc.tmc.edu
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S., Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S., Evaluation Studies