Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Burton Anya, Byrnes Graham, Stone Jennifer, Tamimi Rulla M, Heine John, Vachon Celine, Ozmen Vahit, Pereira Ana, Garmendia Maria Luisa, Scott Christopher, Hipwell John H, Dickens Caroline, Schüz Joachim, Aribal Mustafa Erkin, Bertrand Kimberly, Kwong Ava, Giles Graham G, Hopper John, Pérez Gómez Beatriz, Pollán Marina, Teo Soo-Hwang, Mariapun Shivaani, Taib Nur Aishah Mohd, Lajous Martín, Lopez-Riduara Ruy, Rice Megan, Romieu Isabelle, Flugelman Anath Arzee, Ursin Giske, Qureshi Samera, Ma Huiyan, Lee Eunjung, Sirous Reza, Sirous Mehri, Lee Jong Won, Kim Jisun, Salem Dorria, Kamal Rasha, Hartman Mikael, Miao Hui, Chia Kee-Seng, Nagata Chisato, Vinayak Sudhir, Ndumia Rose, van Gils Carla H, Wanders Johanna O P, Peplonska Beata, Bukowska Agnieszka, Allen Steve, Vinnicombe Sarah, Moss Sue, Chiarelli Anna M, Linton Linda, Maskarinec Gertraud, Yaffe Martin J, Boyd Norman F, Dos-Santos-Silva Isabel, McCormack Valerie A
Аннотация
METHODS: We obtained 1294 pairs of images saved in both raw and processed formats from Hologic and General Electric (GE) direct digital systems and a Fuji computed radiography (CR) system, and 128 screen-film and processed CR-digital pairs from consecutive screening rounds. Four readers performed Cumulus-based MD measurements (n = 3441), with each image pair read by the same reader. Multi-level models of square-root percent MD were fitted, with a random intercept for woman, to estimate processed-raw MD differences.
RESULTS: Breast area did not differ in processed images compared with that in raw images, but the percent MD was higher, due to a larger dense area (median 28.5 and 25.4 cm2 respectively, mean √dense area difference 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in √dense area was significant for direct digital systems (Hologic 0.50 cm (95% CI: 0.39, 0.61), GE 0.56 cm (95% CI: 0.42, 0.69)) but not for Fuji CR (0.06 cm (95% CI: -0.10, 0.23)). Additionally, within each system, reader-specific differences varied in magnitude and direction (p < 0.001). Conversion equations revealed differences converged to zero with increasing dense area. MD differences between screen-film and processed digital on the subsequent screening round were consistent with expected time-related MD declines.
CONCLUSIONS: MD was slightly higher when measured on processed than on raw direct digital mammograms. Comparisons of MD on these image formats should ideally control for this non-constant and reader-specific difference.