Title | ||
---|---|---|
The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting. |
Abstract | ||
---|---|---|
The purpose of this study was to determine whether intensity windowing (IW) improves detection of simulated masses in dense
mammograms. Simulated masses were embedded in dense mammograms digitized at 50 microns/pixel, 12 bits deep. Images were printed
with no windowing applied and with nine window width and level combinations applied. A simulated mass was embedded in a realistic
background of dense breast tissue, with the position of the mass (against the background) varied. The key variables involved
in each trial included the position of the mass, the contrast levels and the IW setting applied to the image. Combining the
10 image processing conditions, 4 contrast levels, and 4 quadrant positions gave 160 combinations. The trials were constructed
by pairing 160 combinations of key variables with 160 backgrounds. The entire experiment consisted of 800 trials. Twenty observers
were asked to detect the quadrant of the image into which the mass was located. There was a statistically significant improvement
in detection performance for masses when the window width was set at 1024 with a level of 3328. IW should be tested in the
clinic to determine whether mass detection performance in real mammograms is improved. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
---|---|---|
1997 | 10.1007/BF03168840 | J. Digital Imaging |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
mammography,breast mass,image processing | Mammography,Computer vision,Window Width,Computer science,Image processing,Pixel,Artificial intelligence,Radiographic Image Enhancement | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
10 | 4 | 0897-1889 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
2 | 1.49 | 3 |
Authors | ||
10 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
---|---|---|---|
Etta D. Pisano | 1 | 344 | 49.06 |
Jayanthi Chandramouli | 2 | 5 | 3.28 |
Bradley M. Hemminger | 3 | 456 | 38.24 |
Deb Glueck | 4 | 5 | 3.28 |
R. Eugene Johnston | 5 | 118 | 15.87 |
Keith Muller | 6 | 158 | 13.40 |
M. Patricia Braeuning | 7 | 93 | 7.04 |
Derek T. Puff | 8 | 38 | 9.43 |
William F. Garrett | 9 | 2 | 1.49 |
Stephen M. Pizer | 10 | 2000 | 262.21 |