Subjective assessment of high-level image compression of digitized mammograms

This study was designed to evaluate radiologists’ ability to identify highly-compressed, digitized mammographic images displayed on high-resolution, monitors. Mammography films were digitized at 50 micron pixel dimensions using a high-resolution laser film digitizer. Image data were compressed using the irreversible (lossy), wavelet-based JPEG 2000 method. Twenty images were randomly presented in pairs (one image per monitor) in three modes: mode 1, non-compressed versus 50:1 compression; mode 2, non-compressed versus 75:1 compression; and mode 3, 50:1 versus 75:1 compression with 20 random pairs presented twice (80 pairs total). Six radiologists were forced to choose which image had the lower level of data compression in a two-alternative forced choice paradigm. The average percent correct across the six radiologists for modes 1, 2 and 3 were 52.5% (+/-11.3), 58.3% (+/-14.7), and 58.3% (+/-7.5), respectively. Intra-reader agreement ranged from 10 to 50% and Kappa from -0.78 to -0.19. Kappa for inter-reader agreement ranged from -0.47 to 0.37. The “monitor effect” (left/right) was of the same order of magnitude as the radiologists’ ability to identify the lower level of image compression. In this controlled evaluation, radiologists did not accurately discriminate non-compressed and highly-compressed images. Therefore, 75:1 image compression should be acceptable for review of digitized mammograms in a telemammography system.

[1]  Daniel B Kopans,et al.  The pattern of breast cancer screening utilization and its consequences , 2002, Cancer.

[2]  S L Lou,et al.  Automatic breast region extraction from digital mammograms for PACS and telemammography applications. , 2000, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[3]  David Gur,et al.  Multi-site telemammography system: preliminary assessment of technical and operational issues , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[4]  P R Mueller,et al.  CT colonography with teleradiology: effect of lossy wavelet compression on polyp detection--initial observations. , 2001, Radiology.

[5]  Patients' opinion of mammography screening services: immediate results versus delayed results due to interpretation by two observers. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  David Gur,et al.  Design considerations for a multisite POTS-based telemammography system , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[7]  J. Elmore,et al.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  寺江 聡 Wavelet Compression on Detection of Brain Lesions with Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2001 .

[9]  H Irene Hall,et al.  Breast and cervical carcinoma screening practices among women in rural and nonrural areas of the United States, 1998–1999 , 2002, Cancer.

[10]  G. Schuierer,et al.  Is image selection a useful strategy to decrease the transmission time in teleradiology? A study using 100 emergency cranial CTs , 1998, European Radiology.

[11]  Pamela C. Cosman,et al.  Image quality in lossy compressed digital mammograms , 1997, Signal Process..

[12]  T. Perneger,et al.  Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma , 2001, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[13]  竹本 宜弘 JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) , 1995 .

[14]  M. Goldberg,et al.  Application of wavelet compression to digitized radiographs. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  S. Duffy,et al.  Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. , 1995, The British journal of radiology.

[16]  D Gur,et al.  Preliminary clinical evaluation of a high-resolution telemammography system. , 1997, Investigative radiology.

[17]  J A Brink,et al.  Evaluation of JPEG and wavelet compression of body CT images for direct digital teleradiologic transmission. , 2000, Radiology.

[18]  S Sone,et al.  Effect of CT digital image compression on detection of coronary artery calcification. , 2000, Acta radiologica.

[19]  T Liebig,et al.  Wavelet versus JPEG (Joint Photographic Expert Group) and fractal compression. Impact on the detection of low-contrast details in computed radiographs. , 1998, Investigative radiology.

[20]  I Moscovice,et al.  Rural radiology: who is producing images and who is reading them? , 1997, The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association.

[21]  N A Obuchowski,et al.  Clinical evaluation of wavelet-compressed digitized screen-film mammography. , 2000, Academic radiology.