Research Article
Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom
Table 2
Explorative analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. The values were not corrected for multiple test scenarios. values .05 are labeled in bold typeface.
(a) Number of visible silica beads. The explorative analysis of interrater variability from the experimental gold standard did not produce any significant differences between the imaging techniques, neither in the global analysis of the three imaging methods (Kruskal-Wallis Test) nor in the paired comparisons of the two imaging methods (Mann-Whitney Test) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CCD, charge-coupled device. FPM, direct digital flat-panel detector mammography system. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(b) Size of simulated microcalcifications. The explorative analysis of radiologists’ ratings measured against the experimentally preset reference values produced no global difference between the 3 imaging techniques (Kruskal-Wallis test). Explorative analysis using the Mann-Whitney test for raters 1 and 2 produced notable differences in comparing digital mammograms with the CCD images with 1024 and 512 matrix , but not for the other two raters | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CCD, charge-coupled device. FPM, direct digital flat-panel detector mammography system. |