Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of different resolution and noise levels on task performance in digital mammography. This study created an image set with images at three different resolution levels, corresponding to three digital display devices, and three different noise levels, with noise magnitudes similar to full clinical dose, half clinical dose, and quarter clinical dose. The images were read by five experienced breast imaging radiologists. The data were then analyzed to compute two accuracy statistics (overall classification accuracy and lesion detection accuracy) and performance at four diagnostic tasks (detection of microcalcifications, benign masses, malignant masses, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses). Human observer results showed decreasing display resolution had little effect on overall classification accuracy and individual diagnostic task performance, but increasing noise caused overall classification accuracy to decrease by a statistically significant 21% as the breast dose went to one quarter of its normal clinical value. The noise effects were most prominent for the tasks of microcalcification detection and mass discrimination. When the noise changed from full clinical dose to quarter clinical dose, the microcalcification detection performance fell from 89% to 67% and the mass discrimination performance decreased from 93% to 79%, while malignant mass detection performance remained relatively constant with values of 88% and 84%, respectively. As a secondary aim, the image set was also analyzed by two observer models to examine whether their performance was similar to humans. Observer models differed from human observers and each other in their sensitivity to resolution degradation and noise. The primary conclusions of this study suggest that quantum noise appears to be the dominant image quality factor in digital mammography, affecting radiologist performance much more profoundly than display resolution.

[1]  Peter Smeets,et al.  Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection. , 2006, European journal of radiology.

[2]  Ingrid Reiser,et al.  Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic backgrounds. , 2006, Medical physics.

[3]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Detection of simulated lesions on data-compressed digital mammograms. , 2005, Radiology.

[4]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Model observers for signal-known-statistically tasks (SKS) , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[5]  Andrew G. Davies,et al.  Optimizing the processing and presentation of PPCR imaging , 1996, Medical Imaging.

[6]  Dev P. Chakraborty,et al.  Visual discrimination modeling of lesion detectability , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[7]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Use of a Human Visual System Model to Predict Observer Performance with CRT vs LCD Display of Images , 2004, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[8]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Use of a human visual system model to predict the effects of display veiling glare on observer performance , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[9]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Resolution and noise measurements of five CRT and LCD medical displays. , 2006, Medical physics.

[10]  C. Metz.  ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[11]  James O. Larimer,et al.  Evaluation of human vision models for predicting human observer performance , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[12]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  A method for modifying the image quality parameters of digital radiographic images. , 2003, Medical physics.

[13]  Dennis G. Fryback,et al.  The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging , 1991, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. , 2003, Medical physics.

[15]  D. DeLong,et al.  Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. , 2007, Radiology.

[16]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms. , 2006, Medical physics.

[17]  J Hilden,et al.  Regret graphs, diagnostic uncertainty and Youden's Index. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Effect of display resolution on the detection of mammographic lesions , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[19]  Francis R. Verdun,et al.  Importance of anatomical noise in mammography , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[20]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Human performance for detection and discrimination of simulated microcalcifications in mammographic backgrounds , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[21]  E Samei,et al.  Luminance and Contrast Performance of Liquid Crystal Displays for Mammographic Applications , 2004, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[22]  M W Kattan,et al.  Determining the Area under the ROC Curve for a Binary Diagnostic Test , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Optimization of model observer performance for signal known exactly but variable tasks leads to optimized performance in signal known statistically tasks , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[24]  S Suryanarayanan,et al.  Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. , 2000, Medical physics.

[25]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. , 2005, Medical physics.

[26]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

[27]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Visual discrimination model for digital mammography , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[28]  Richard M. Heiberger,et al.  Statistical Analysis and Data Display , 2004 .

[29]  Hans Roehrig,et al.  On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions. , 2005, Academic radiology.

[30]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Lesion detectability in digital radiography , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[31]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[32]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Physical characteristics of a full-field digital mammography system , 2004 .

[33]  J G Jarvik.  The research framework. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[34]  Arthur E. Burgess.  Evaluation of detection model performance in power-law noise , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[35]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Simulation of mammographic lesions. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[36]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Human vs model observers in anatomic backgrounds , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[37]  Jay Bartroff,et al.  Automated computer evaluation and optimization of image compression of x-ray coronary angiograms for signal known exactly detection tasks. , 2003, Optics express.

[38]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Figures of merit for detectors in digital radiography. II. Finite number of secondaries and structured backgrounds. , 2004, Medical physics.

[39]  M J Yaffe,et al.  Analysis of the spatial-frequency-dependent DQE of optically coupled digital mammography detectors. , 1994, Medical physics.

[40]  Jiahua Fan,et al.  Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of MTF compensation. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[41]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Physical and psychophysical evaluation of digital systems for mammography , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[42]  J R Thornbury,et al.  Eugene W. Caldwell Lecture. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[43]  M B Williams,et al.  Analysis of the detective quantum efficiency of a developmental detector for digital mammography. , 1999, Medical Physics (Lancaster).

[44]  H H Barrett,et al.  Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[45]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. IV. Figures of merit for model performance in multiple-alternative forced-choice detection tasks with correlated responses. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[46]  J. Boone,et al.  Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results. , 2000, Medical physics.

[47]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector. , 2003, Medical physics.

[48]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Signal detectability in digital radiography: spatial domain figures of merit. , 2003, Medical physics.

[49]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Characterization of breast masses for simulation purposes , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[50]  A. Burgess.  Statistically defined backgrounds: performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[51]  Hans Roehrig,et al.  Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of display phosphor. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[52]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  MTF correction for optimizing softcopy display of digital mammograms: use of a vision model for predicting observer performance , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[53]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Figures of merit for detectors in digital radiography. I. Flat background and deterministic blurring. , 2004, Medical physics.

[54]  T Aach,et al.  Digital radiography enhancement by nonlinear multiscale processing. , 2000, Medical physics.

[55]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[56]  Francis R. Verdun,et al.  Development of a test object for an objective assessment of image quality in conventional or digital mammography , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.