Comparison of human observers and CDCOM software reading for CDMAM images

Nico Lanconelli, Stefano Rivetti, Paola Golinelli, Marco Serafini, Marco Bertolini, Giovanni Borasi

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Contrast-detail analysis is one the most common way for the assessment of the performance of an imaging system. Usually, the reading of phantoms, such as CDMAM, is obtained by human observers. The main drawbacks of this practice is the presence of inter-observer variability and the great amount of time needed. However, software programs are available, for reading CDMAM images in an automatic way. In this paper we present a comparison of human and software reading of CDMAM images coming from three different FFDM clinical units. Images were acquired at different exposures in the same conditions for the three systems. Once software has completed the reading, the interpretation of the results is achieved on the same way used for the human case. CDCOM results are consistent with human analysis, if we consider figures such as COR and IQF. On the other hand, we find out some discrepancies along the CD curves obtained by human observers, with respect to those estimated by automated CDCOM analysis.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProgress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE
Volume6515
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007
EventMedical Imaging 2007: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment - San Diego, CA, United States
Duration: Feb 21 2007Feb 22 2007

Other

OtherMedical Imaging 2007: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
CountryUnited States
CitySan Diego, CA
Period2/21/072/22/07

Fingerprint

Imaging systems

Keywords

  • CDCOM
  • CDMAM
  • Contrast detail
  • Digital mammography
  • Psychophysical analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Engineering(all)

Cite this

Lanconelli, N., Rivetti, S., Golinelli, P., Serafini, M., Bertolini, M., & Borasi, G. (2007). Comparison of human observers and CDCOM software reading for CDMAM images. In Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE (Vol. 6515). [65150E] https://doi.org/10.1117/12.710154

Comparison of human observers and CDCOM software reading for CDMAM images. / Lanconelli, Nico; Rivetti, Stefano; Golinelli, Paola; Serafini, Marco; Bertolini, Marco; Borasi, Giovanni.

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6515 2007. 65150E.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Lanconelli, N, Rivetti, S, Golinelli, P, Serafini, M, Bertolini, M & Borasi, G 2007, Comparison of human observers and CDCOM software reading for CDMAM images. in Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. vol. 6515, 65150E, Medical Imaging 2007: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, San Diego, CA, United States, 2/21/07. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.710154
Lanconelli N, Rivetti S, Golinelli P, Serafini M, Bertolini M, Borasi G. Comparison of human observers and CDCOM software reading for CDMAM images. In Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6515. 2007. 65150E https://doi.org/10.1117/12.710154
Lanconelli, Nico ; Rivetti, Stefano ; Golinelli, Paola ; Serafini, Marco ; Bertolini, Marco ; Borasi, Giovanni. / Comparison of human observers and CDCOM software reading for CDMAM images. Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6515 2007.
@inproceedings{710502a4d3ae4d67ad54db8b672517d6,
title = "Comparison of human observers and CDCOM software reading for CDMAM images",
abstract = "Contrast-detail analysis is one the most common way for the assessment of the performance of an imaging system. Usually, the reading of phantoms, such as CDMAM, is obtained by human observers. The main drawbacks of this practice is the presence of inter-observer variability and the great amount of time needed. However, software programs are available, for reading CDMAM images in an automatic way. In this paper we present a comparison of human and software reading of CDMAM images coming from three different FFDM clinical units. Images were acquired at different exposures in the same conditions for the three systems. Once software has completed the reading, the interpretation of the results is achieved on the same way used for the human case. CDCOM results are consistent with human analysis, if we consider figures such as COR and IQF. On the other hand, we find out some discrepancies along the CD curves obtained by human observers, with respect to those estimated by automated CDCOM analysis.",
keywords = "CDCOM, CDMAM, Contrast detail, Digital mammography, Psychophysical analysis",
author = "Nico Lanconelli and Stefano Rivetti and Paola Golinelli and Marco Serafini and Marco Bertolini and Giovanni Borasi",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1117/12.710154",
language = "English",
isbn = "0819466336",
volume = "6515",
booktitle = "Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Comparison of human observers and CDCOM software reading for CDMAM images

AU - Lanconelli, Nico

AU - Rivetti, Stefano

AU - Golinelli, Paola

AU - Serafini, Marco

AU - Bertolini, Marco

AU - Borasi, Giovanni

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Contrast-detail analysis is one the most common way for the assessment of the performance of an imaging system. Usually, the reading of phantoms, such as CDMAM, is obtained by human observers. The main drawbacks of this practice is the presence of inter-observer variability and the great amount of time needed. However, software programs are available, for reading CDMAM images in an automatic way. In this paper we present a comparison of human and software reading of CDMAM images coming from three different FFDM clinical units. Images were acquired at different exposures in the same conditions for the three systems. Once software has completed the reading, the interpretation of the results is achieved on the same way used for the human case. CDCOM results are consistent with human analysis, if we consider figures such as COR and IQF. On the other hand, we find out some discrepancies along the CD curves obtained by human observers, with respect to those estimated by automated CDCOM analysis.

AB - Contrast-detail analysis is one the most common way for the assessment of the performance of an imaging system. Usually, the reading of phantoms, such as CDMAM, is obtained by human observers. The main drawbacks of this practice is the presence of inter-observer variability and the great amount of time needed. However, software programs are available, for reading CDMAM images in an automatic way. In this paper we present a comparison of human and software reading of CDMAM images coming from three different FFDM clinical units. Images were acquired at different exposures in the same conditions for the three systems. Once software has completed the reading, the interpretation of the results is achieved on the same way used for the human case. CDCOM results are consistent with human analysis, if we consider figures such as COR and IQF. On the other hand, we find out some discrepancies along the CD curves obtained by human observers, with respect to those estimated by automated CDCOM analysis.

KW - CDCOM

KW - CDMAM

KW - Contrast detail

KW - Digital mammography

KW - Psychophysical analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35148832171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35148832171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1117/12.710154

DO - 10.1117/12.710154

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:35148832171

SN - 0819466336

SN - 9780819466334

VL - 6515

BT - Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

ER -