English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objective Some vendors have created algorithms that generate synthetic 2D (s2D) images from a digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) dataset to reduce the radiation from obtaining a separate 2D digital mammography (DM). This study evaluated the visibility of amorphous calcifications on 2D DM versus s2D on screening mammography. Methods This IRB-approved, retrospective, reader study included screening mammograms from 36 women who received screening DBT exams where both 2D DM and s2D images were obtained: 28 screening mammograms that were eventually given BI-RADS category 4 or 5 for amorphous calcifications and 8 BI-RADS category 1 or 2 screening exams. Two rounds of interpretation were conducted with a six-week washout period. Cases were randomized to display either the 2D DM or s2D images, which were then alternated in the second round. Four fellowship-trained breast radiologists determined whether a study merited recall for calcifications. If so, they rated calcification visibility on a scale of 1 to 5. McNemar chi-square tests were conducted to assess differences in recall rates and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to examine shifts in visibility. Results There was no difference in detection rates of amorphous calcifications between 2D DM and s2D, which were 75.9% and 75.0%, respectively (P = 1.000). Collectively, amorphous calcifications were more visible on s2D than 2D DM, with mean visibility scores of 3.4 versus 3.0, respectively (P = 0.005). Conclusion Synthetic 2D did not change identification of amorphous calcifications compared to 2D DM, and readers considered them more visible on average.

2D or Synthetic 2D? A Reader Study of Visualization of Amorphous Calcifications