Suppr超能文献

Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality.

作者信息

Braeuning M P, Cooper H W, O'Brien S, Burns C B, Washburn D B, Schell M J, Pisano E D

机构信息

Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill 27599-7510, USA.

出版信息

Acad Radiol. 1999 Aug;6(8):464-70. doi: 10.1016/s1076-6332(99)80165-2.

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Any given mammographic film will exhibit changes in sensitometric response and image resolution as processing variables are altered. Developer type, immersion time, and temperature have been shown to affect the contrast of the mammographic image and thus lesion visibility. The authors evaluated the effect of altering processing variables, including film type, developer type, and immersion time, on the visibility of masses, fibrils, and speaks in a standard mammographic phantom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Images of a phantom obtained with two screen types (Kodak Min-R and Fuji) and five film types (Kodak Min-R M, Min-R E, Min-R H; Fuji UM-MA HC, and DuPont Microvision-C) were processed with five different developer chemicals (Autex SE, DuPont HSD, Kodak RP, Picker 3-7-90, and White Mountain) at four different immersion times (24, 30, 36, and 46 seconds). Processor chemical activity was monitored with sensitometric strips, and developer temperatures were continuously measured. The film images were reviewed by two board-certified radiologists and two physicists with expertise in mammography quality control and were scored based on the visibility of calcifications, masses, and fibrils.

RESULTS

Although the differences in the absolute scores were not large, the Kodak Min-R M and Fuji films exhibited the highest scores, and images developed in White Mountain and Autex chemicals exhibited the highest scores.

CONCLUSION

For any film, several processing chemicals may be used to produce images of similar quality. Extended processing may no longer be necessary.

摘要

相似文献

1
Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality.
Acad Radiol. 1999 Aug;6(8):464-70. doi: 10.1016/s1076-6332(99)80165-2.
2
Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
Br J Radiol. 2006 Feb;79(938):123-9. doi: 10.1259/bjr/84646476.
3
Evaluation of a new mammographic film: methods and considerations.
Health Phys. 2008 Apr;94(4):338-44. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000298225.97830.a4.
5
Optimum processing of mammographic film.
Radiographics. 1996 Mar;16(2):349-54. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.16.2.8966292.
6
New mammography screen/film combinations: imaging characteristics and radiation dose.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990 Apr;154(4):713-9. doi: 10.2214/ajr.154.4.2107663.
7
A comparative study of films and screens for mammography.
Br J Radiol. 1987 Jan;60(709):73-8. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-60-709-73.
8
An evaluation of the effect of processing conditions on mammographic film contrast, fog levels and speed.
Australas Radiol. 1992 Aug;36(3):234-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1992.tb03158.x.
9
A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms.
Clin Radiol. 2000 Oct;55(10):782-90. doi: 10.1053/crad.2000.0521.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验