首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The British Journal of Radiology >Zooming method (× 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (× 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications
【2h】

Zooming method (× 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (× 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications

机译:数字化乳腺X线摄影的缩放方法(×2.0)与全场数字乳腺X线摄影中的数字放大视图(×1.8)的诊断微钙化

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the interpretation of microcalcifications assessed on images zoomed (× 2.0) from digital mammograms is at least equivalent to that from digital magnification mammography (× 1.8) with respect to diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Three radiologists with different levels of experience in mammography reviewed each full-field digital mammography reader set for 185 patients with pathologically proven microcalcification clusters, which consisted of digital magnification mammograms (MAGs) with a magnification factor of 1.8 and images zoomed from mammograms (ZOOM) with a zoom factor of 2.0. Each radiologist rated their suspicion of breast cancer in microcalcific lesions using a six-point scale and the image quality and their confidence in the decisions using a five-point scale. Results were analysed according to display methods using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Az value) for ZOOM and MAGs to interpret microcalcifications, and the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for image quality and confidence levels. There was no statistically significant difference in the level of suspicion of breast cancer between the ZOOM and MAG groups (Az = 0.8680 for ZOOM; Az = 0.8682 for MAG; p = 0.9897). However, MAG images were significantly better than ZOOM images in terms of visual imaging quality (p < 0.001), and the confidence level with MAG was better than with ZOOM (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the performance of radiologists in the diagnosis of microcalcifications using ZOOM was similar to that using MAGs, although image quality and confidence levels were better using MAGs.
机译:这项研究的目的是确定在诊断准确性和图像质量方面,从数字化乳腺X线照片放大(×2.0)评估的图像上的微钙化的解释是否至少与数字化乳腺X线摄影(×1.8)的解释相同。三名具有不同乳腺X射线摄影经验的放射线医师对每台全视野数字乳腺X射线摄影仪阅读器进行了检查,这些阅读器针对185例经过病理证实的微钙化簇,其中包括放大倍数为1.8的数字乳腺X射线照片(MAG)和从乳腺X射线照片(ZOOM)放大的图像缩放系数为2.0。每位放射科医生使用六点量表对他们怀疑患有微钙化病变的乳腺癌进行评估,并使用五点量表对图像质量和他们对决策的信心进行评估。根据显示方法分析结果,使用接收器工作特性曲线(Az值)下的ZOOM和MAGs区域来解释微钙化,Wilcoxon配对配对符号秩检验用于图像质量和置信度。在ZOOM和MAG组之间,对乳腺癌的怀疑水平没有统计学上的显着差异(ZOOM的Az = 0.8680; MAG的Az = 0.8682; p = 0.9897)。但是,就视觉成像质量而言,MAG图像显着优于ZOOM图像(p <0.001),并且与ZOOM相比,MAG的置信度更好(p <0.001)。总之,尽管使用MAG可以改善影像质量和置信度,但是使用ZOOM进行放射诊断的微钙化诊断性能与使用MAG相似。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号