Skip Navigation


Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on February 3, 2006
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2005 117(1-3):148-153; doi:10.1093/rpd/nci729
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
117/1-3/148    most recent
nci729v2
nci729v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ongeval, C. V.
Right arrow Articles by Van Steen, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ongeval, C. V.
Right arrow Articles by Van Steen, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Current challenges of full field digital mammography

C. Van Ongeval*, H. Bosmans and A. Van Steen

Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium

* Corresponding author: chantal.vanongeval{at}uz.kuleuven.ac.be

Full field digital mammography (FFDM) has advantages over screen-film mammography (SFM), but some important challenges remain. The first challenge is related to the specific characteristics of FFDM. It remains unclear, which shape and limiting values of the modulation transfer function have the most influence on the performance of a detector, such as the effect of the image display on the overall image quality and the effect of processing on cancer detection. In order to assess the image quality of FFDM, we have set up a scoring system. The second challenge is related to screening mammography: is the quality of an image the same when it is viewed on different monitors and with different processing algorithms? Is Computer Aided Diagnosis necessary in a screening environment? In FFDM, the effect of different detectors, processing and display possibilities on the image and on cancer detection are not clearly investigated.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
C. Van Ongeval, A. Van Steen, C. Geniets, F. Dekeyzer, H. Bosmans, and G. Marchal
CLINICAL IMAGE QUALITY CRITERIA FOR FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY: A FIRST PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 4, 2008; (2008) ncn029v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.