ITEM METADATA RECORD
Title: Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image processing algorithms in digital mammography
Authors: Zanca, Federica # ×
Van Ongeval, Chantal
Claus, Filip
Jacobs, J
Oyen, Raymond
Bosmans, Hilde #
Issue Date: Dec-2012
Publisher: British Institute of Radiology
Series Title: The British Journal of Radiology vol:85 issue:1020 pages:e1233-E1241
Abstract: Objective: To compare two methods for assessment of image processing algorithms in digital mammography: free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) for the specific task of microcalcification detection and visual grading analysis (VGA).Methods: The FROC study was conducted prior to the VGA study reported here. 200 raw data files of low breast density (BI-RADS I-II) mammograms (Siemens Novation DR, Germany)-100 of which abnormal-were processed by four image-processing algorithms: Raffaello (IMS, Bologna, Italy), Sigmoid (Sectra, Linköping, Sweden), and OpView v. 2 and v. 1 (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Four radiologists assessed the mammograms for the detection of microcalcifications. 8 months after the FROC study, a subset (200) of the 800 images was reinterpreted by the same radiologists, using the VGA methodology in a side-by-side approach. The VGA grading was based on noise, saturation, contrast, sharpness and confidence with the image in terms normal structures. Ordinal logistic regression was applied; OpView v. 1 was the reference processing.Results: In the FROC study all algorithms performed better than OpView v. 1. From the current VGA study and for confidence with the image, Sigmoid and Raffaello were significantly worse (p<0.001) than OpView v. 1; OpView v. 2 was significantly better (pā€Š=ā€Š0.01). For the image quality criteria, results were mixed; Raffaello and Sigmoid for example were better than OpView v. 1 for sharpness and contrast (although not always significantly).Conclusion: VGA and FROC discordant results should be attributed to the different clinical task addressed.Advances to knowledge: The method to use for image processing assessment depends on the clinical task tested.
ISSN: 0007-1285
Publication status: published
KU Leuven publication type: IT
Appears in Collections:Medical Physics & Quality Assessment (+)
Radiology
× corresponding author
# (joint) last author

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.

 


All items in Lirias are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

© Web of science