The threshold contrast thickness evaluated with different CDMAM phantoms and software

1. European Communities. (2006). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Search in Google Scholar

2. European Communities. (2013). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition Supplements. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Search in Google Scholar

3. Young, K. C., Cook, J. J. H., & Oduko, J. M. (2006). Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. In M. J. Flynn, & J. Hsieh (Eds.), Medical Imaging 2006: Physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE (vol. 6142), 614206-7.614206. DOI: 10.1117/12.653296.10.1117/12.653296Search in Google Scholar

4. de las Heras, H., Schöfer, F., & Tiller, B. (2013). A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography. Phys. Med. Biol., 58(8), L17–L30. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/8/L17.10.1088/0031-9155/58/8/L1723528479Search in Google Scholar

5. BMU. (2012). Development of procedures for non-destructive quality control of phantoms that are used in quality assurance tests according to §16, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the German x-ray ordinance at x-ray systems used for examination of humans UFO-Plan Vorhaben 3608S20001. German Ministry for Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Security. Braunschweig: PTB. (in German). Available from http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/handle/urn:nbn:de:0221-2012111310226/.Search in Google Scholar

6. van der Burght, R., Thijssen, M., & Bijkerk, R. (2010) Manual contrast – detail phantom CDMAM type 3.4. The Netherlands: Artinis Medical Systems BV.Search in Google Scholar

7. Young, K. C., Alsager, A., & Oduko, J. M. (2008). Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. In K. C. Young, A. Alsager, J. M. Oduko, H. Bosmans, B. Verbrugge, T. Geertse, & R. van Engen (Eds.), Medical Imaging 2008: Physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE (vol. 69131C). DOI: 10.1117/12.770571.10.1117/12.770571Search in Google Scholar

8. Van Metter, R., Heath, M., & Fletcher-Heath, L. (2006). Applying the European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening threshold contrast visibility assessment to digital systems. In M. J. Flynn, & J. Hsieh (Eds.), Medical Imaging 2006: Physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE (vol. 6142), 614205. DOI: 10.1117/12.650141.10.1117/12.650141Search in Google Scholar

9. Karssemeijer, N., & Thijssen, M. A. O. (1996). Determination of contrast-detail curves of mammography systems by automated image analysis. In K. Doi, M. L. Giger, & R. M. Nishikawa (Eds.), Digital mammography (pp. 155–160). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

10. Visser, R., & Karssemeijer, N. (2011). CDCOM Manual: software for automated readout of CDMAM 3.4 images. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University.Search in Google Scholar

11. Klein, S. A. (2001). Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: A commentary. Percept. Psychophys., 63(8), 1421–1455. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194552.10.3758/BF03194552Search in Google Scholar

12. Young, K. C., Brookes, E., Hudson, W., & Halling-Brown, M. D. (2012). CDMAM Analyser: Software and instruction manual for automated determination of threshold contrast. Version 1.5.5. Guildford: National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography.Search in Google Scholar

13. Kacker, N. R., Kessel, R., & Sommer, K. (2010). Assessing differences between results determined according to the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., 115(6), 453–459. DOI: 10.6028/jres.115.031.10.6028/jres.115.031454886727134797Search in Google Scholar