Mass detection on mammograms: signal variations and performance changes for human and model observers

We studied the influence of signal variability on human and model observer performances for a detection task with mammographic backgrounds and computer generated clustered lumpy backgrounds (CLB). We used synthetic yet realistic masses and backgrounds that have been validated by radiologists during previous studies, ensuring conditions close to the clinical situation. Four trained non-physician observers participated in two-alternative forced-choice (2-AFC) experiments. They were asked to detect synthetic masses superimposed on real mammographic backgrounds or CLB. Separate experiments were conducted with sets of benign and malignant masses. Results under the signal-known-exactly (SKE) paradigm were compared with signal-known-statistically (SKS) experiments. In the latter case, the signal was chosen randomly for each of the 1,400 2-AFC trials (image pairs) among a set of 50 masses with similar dimensions, and the observers did not know which signal was present. Human observers' results were then compared with model observers (channelized Hotelling with Difference-of-Gaussian and Gabor channels) in the same experimental conditions. Results show that the performance of the human observers does not differ significantly when benign masses are superimposed on real images or on CLB with locally matched gray level mean and standard deviation. For both benign and malignant masses, the performance does not differ significantly between SKE and SKS experiments, when the signals' dimensions do not vary throughout the experiment. However, there is a performance drop when the SKS signals' dimensions vary from 5.5 to 9.5 mm in the same experiment. Noise level in the model observers can be adjusted to reproduce human observers' proportion of correct answers in the 2-AFC task within 5% accuracy for most conditions.

[1]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Human-observer templates for detection of a simulated lesion in mammographic images , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[2]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Effect of image compression for model and human observers in signal-known-statistically tasks , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[3]  E Berry,et al.  The effect of experience on detectability in local area anatomical noise. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Task-based model/human observer evaluation of SPIHT wavelet compression with human visual system-based quantization. , 2005, Academic radiology.

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

[6]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Adaptive detection mechanisms in globally statistically nonstationary-oriented noise. , 2006, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[7]  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.

[8]  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.

[9]  Miguel P. Eckstein,et al.  Automated optimization of JPEG 2000 encoder options based on model observer performance for detecting variable signals in X-ray coronary angiograms , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  H Ghandeharian,et al.  Visual signal detection. I. Ability to use phase information. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[11]  C Abbey,et al.  Statistical texture synthesis of mammographic images with super-blob lumpy backgrounds. , 1999, Optics express.

[12]  M. Kallergi,et al.  Simulation model of mammographic calcifications based on the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, or BIRADS. , 1998, Academic radiology.

[13]  H. Barrett,et al.  Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[14]  Cyril Castella,et al.  Human linear template with mammographic backgrounds estimated with a genetic algorithm. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[15]  H H Barrett,et al.  Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[16]  A. Ahumada Classification image weights and internal noise level estimation. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[17]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Evaluation of internal noise methods for Hotelling observer models. , 2007, Medical physics.

[18]  Richard F Murray,et al.  Optimal methods for calculating classification images: weighted sums. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[19]  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.

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

[21]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[22]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Maximum-likelihood and maximum-a-posteriori estimates of human-observer templates , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[23]  Miguel P. Eckstein,et al.  Image discrimination models predict signal detection in natural medical image backgrounds , 1997, Electronic Imaging.

[24]  Miguel P. Eckstein,et al.  Mammographic texture synthesis using genetic programming and clustered lumpy background , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[25]  Arthur E Burgess,et al.  Signal detection in power-law noise: effect of spectrum exponents. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[26]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[27]  Joshua A Solomon,et al.  Noise reveals visual mechanisms of detection and discrimination. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[28]  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.

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

[30]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. , 1981, Science.

[31]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  A Practical Guide to Model Observers for Visual Detection in Synthetic and Natural Noisy Images , 2000 .

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

[33]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Observer detection performance loss: target-size uncertainty , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[34]  Yulei Jiang,et al.  Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements. , 2007, Radiology.

[35]  S Muller,et al.  Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system. , 1999, European journal of radiology.