Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSuryanarayanan, Sankararaman
dc.contributor.authorKarellas, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorVedantham, Srinivasan
dc.contributor.authorBaker, Stephen P.
dc.contributor.authorGlick, Stephen J.
dc.contributor.authorD'Orsi, Carl J.
dc.contributor.authorWebber, Richard L.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:09:11.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T16:20:39Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T16:20:39Z
dc.date.issued2001-03-16
dc.date.submitted2008-05-21
dc.identifier.citationAcad Radiol. 2001 Mar;8(3):219-24. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80530-5">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn1076-6332 (Print)
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80530-5
dc.identifier.pmid11249085
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/35330
dc.description.abstractRATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate digital planar mammography and both linear and nonlinear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A "disk" (ie, target) identification study was conducted to compare planar and reconstruction methods. Projective data using a composite phantom with circular disks were acquired in both planar and tomographic modes by using a full-field, digital mammographic system. Two-dimensional projections were reconstructed with both linear (ie, backprojection) and nonlinear (ie, maximization and minimization) tuned-aperture computed tomographic (TACT) methods to produce three-dimensional data sets. Four board-certified radiologists and one 4th-year radiology resident participated as observers. All images were compared by these observers in terms of the number of disks identified. RESULTS: Significant differences (P < .05, Bonferroni adjusted) were observed between all reconstruction and planar methods. No significant difference, however, was observed between the planar methods, and only a marginally significant difference (P < .054, Bonferroni adjusted) was observed between TACT-backprojection and TACT-minimization. CONCLUSION: A combination of linear and nonlinear reconstruction schemes may have potential implications in terms of enhancing image visualization to provide radiologists with valuable diagnostic information.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11249085&dopt=Abstract ">Link to article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80530-5
dc.subjectBreast Neoplasms
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMammography
dc.subjectPhantoms, Imaging
dc.subject*Radiographic Image Enhancement
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subjectRadiology
dc.titleEvaluation of linear and nonlinear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods in digital mammography
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleAcademic radiology
dc.source.volume8
dc.source.issue3
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/infoservices/78
dc.identifier.contextkey511497
html.description.abstract<p>RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate digital planar mammography and both linear and nonlinear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods.</p> <p>MATERIALS AND METHODS: A "disk" (ie, target) identification study was conducted to compare planar and reconstruction methods. Projective data using a composite phantom with circular disks were acquired in both planar and tomographic modes by using a full-field, digital mammographic system. Two-dimensional projections were reconstructed with both linear (ie, backprojection) and nonlinear (ie, maximization and minimization) tuned-aperture computed tomographic (TACT) methods to produce three-dimensional data sets. Four board-certified radiologists and one 4th-year radiology resident participated as observers. All images were compared by these observers in terms of the number of disks identified.</p> <p>RESULTS: Significant differences (P < .05, Bonferroni adjusted) were observed between all reconstruction and planar methods. No significant difference, however, was observed between the planar methods, and only a marginally significant difference (P < .054, Bonferroni adjusted) was observed between TACT-backprojection and TACT-minimization.</p> <p>CONCLUSION: A combination of linear and nonlinear reconstruction schemes may have potential implications in terms of enhancing image visualization to provide radiologists with valuable diagnostic information.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathinfoservices/78
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Radiology
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Cell Biology
dc.contributor.departmentInformation Services, Academic Computing Services
dc.source.pages219-24


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record