Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13595 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866910795658428416 |
|---|---|
| author | Mackenzie, Alistair Loveland, John van Engen, Ruben |
| author_facet | Mackenzie, Alistair Loveland, John van Engen, Ruben |
| contents | The aim was to undertake a national survey of the setup of mammography imaging systems in the UK, we were particularly interested in image processing and software version. We created a program that can extract selected tags from the DICOM header. 28 medical physics departments used the program on processed images of the TORMAM phantom acquired since 2023 and this produced data for 497 systems. We received data for 7 different models of mammography systems. We found that currently in use each model had between 2 and 7 different versions of software for the acquisition workstation. Each of the systems had multiple versions of image processing settings, a preliminary investigation with TORMAM demonstrated large differences in the appearance of the image for the same X-ray model. The Fujifilm, GE and Siemens systems showed differences in the setup of the dose levels. In addition to these settings there were differences in the paddles used and grid type. Our snapshot of system set up showed that there is a potential for the images to appear differently according to the settings seen in the headers. These differences may affect the outcomes of AI and also human readers. Thus the introduction of AI must take these differences into consideration and the inevitably changes of settings in the future. There are responsibilities on AI suppliers, physics, mammographic equipment manufacturers, and breast-screening units to manage the use of AI and ensure the outcomes of breast screening are not adversely affected by the set-up of equipment. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2501_13595 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Survey of image processing settings used for mammography systems in the United Kingdom: how variable is it? Mackenzie, Alistair Loveland, John van Engen, Ruben Image and Video Processing Computers and Society The aim was to undertake a national survey of the setup of mammography imaging systems in the UK, we were particularly interested in image processing and software version. We created a program that can extract selected tags from the DICOM header. 28 medical physics departments used the program on processed images of the TORMAM phantom acquired since 2023 and this produced data for 497 systems. We received data for 7 different models of mammography systems. We found that currently in use each model had between 2 and 7 different versions of software for the acquisition workstation. Each of the systems had multiple versions of image processing settings, a preliminary investigation with TORMAM demonstrated large differences in the appearance of the image for the same X-ray model. The Fujifilm, GE and Siemens systems showed differences in the setup of the dose levels. In addition to these settings there were differences in the paddles used and grid type. Our snapshot of system set up showed that there is a potential for the images to appear differently according to the settings seen in the headers. These differences may affect the outcomes of AI and also human readers. Thus the introduction of AI must take these differences into consideration and the inevitably changes of settings in the future. There are responsibilities on AI suppliers, physics, mammographic equipment manufacturers, and breast-screening units to manage the use of AI and ensure the outcomes of breast screening are not adversely affected by the set-up of equipment. |
| title | Survey of image processing settings used for mammography systems in the United Kingdom: how variable is it? |
| topic | Image and Video Processing Computers and Society |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13595 |