HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Good, W. F. Articles by Klym, A. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Good, W. F. Articles by Klym, A. H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Detection of Masses and Clustered Microcalcifications on Data Compressed Mammograms

An Observer Performance Study

¹ All authors: Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, A451 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace St., Pittsburgh, PA 15261-0001.

OBJECTIVE. To evaluate observers' ability to detect breast masses and clustered microcalcifications depicted on data compressed mammograms, an observer performance study was performed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Eight observers assessed 60 mammographic images obtained in six modes, ranging from noncompressed to a maximum data compression level of 101:1. Observers were asked to rate the images on a scale of 0 to 100 for the likelihood of the presence of a mass and also independently for the likelihood of the presence of clustered microcalcifications. In addition, observers were asked to rate their subjective assessment of the quality of each image for the detection of a mass and separately for the detection of microcalcifications. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed.

RESULTS. The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, A_z, for the detection of clustered microcalcifications decreases significantly at the highest data compression level when compared with the noncompressed and two lowest levels of data compression (p < 0.01), and a trend test of the average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for all observers is statistically significant (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences among or between any of the data compression level modes for the detection of masses were detected.

CONCLUSION. At a high level of mammogram data compression, observer performance was degraded for the detection of clustered microcalcifications. Detection of masses was not affected by the data compression methods and levels used in this study.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Penedo, M. Souto, P. G. Tahoces, J. M. Carreira, J. Villalon, G. Porto, C. Seoane, J. J. Vidal, K. S. Berbaum, D. P. Chakraborty, et al. Free-Response Receiver Operating Characteristic Evaluation of Lossy JPEG2000 and Object-based Set Partitioning in Hierarchical Trees Compression of Digitized Mammograms Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 450 - 457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, S. M. Waldrop, and C. J. D'Orsi Detection of Simulated Lesions on Data-compressed Digital Mammograms Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 31 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]