Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smathers, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Karras, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smathers, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Karras, B.

Radiology, Vol 159, 673-677, Copyright © 1986 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen- film, and digitized film display

RL Smathers, E Bush, J Drace, M Stevens, FG Sommer, BW Brown Jr and B Karras

Pulverized bone specks and aluminum oxide specks were measured by hand into sizes ranging from 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm and then arranged in clusters. These clusters were superimposed on a human breast tissue phantom, and xeromammograms and screen-film mammograms of the clusters were made. The screen-film mammograms were digitized using a high-resolution laser scanner and then displayed on cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Six radiologists independently counted the microcalcifications on the xeromammograms, the screen-film mammograms, and the digitized-film mammograms. The xeromammograms were examined with a magnifying glass; the screen-film images were examined with a magnifying glass and by hot light; and the digitized-film images were examined by electronic magnification and image processing. The bone speck size that corresponded to a mean 50% detectability level for each technique was as follows: xeromammography, 0.550 mm; digitized film, 0.573 mm; and screen-film, 0.661 mm. We postulate that electronic magnification and image processing with edge enhancement can improve the capability of screen-film mammography to enhance the detection of microcalcifications.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
H. Bosmans, A.-K. Carton, F. Rogge, F. Zanca, J. Jacobs, C. Van Ongeval, K. Nijs, A. Van Steen, and G. Marchal
Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 120 - 130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
H-U Song, K-J Kwon, and K-J Koh
Adenocarcinoma of the parotid gland with calcification
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2003; 32(2): 134 - 136.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1986 by the Radiological Society of North America.