MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015255232 · doi:10.1118/1.3613498

TH‐B‐301‐01: FFDM Quality Control Testing in Canada ‐ a Vendor‐Neutral Approach

2011· article· en· W2015255232 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rasika Rajapakshe

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammographyQuality assuranceDigital mammographyMedical physicsVendorImaging phantomQuality (philosophy)Image qualityMedical physicistPresentation (obstetrics)Computer scienceTest (biology)Quality controlControl (management)MedicineArtificial intelligenceNuclear medicineBreast cancerRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lack of national and international standards for quality control for digital mammography dictates that users have to follow manufacturerˈs recommendations. This leads to significant additional work for facilities with digital mammography systems from multiple vendors. Therefore, a comprehensive and unified quality control test for medical physicists and mammography technologists was developed for the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC), in collaboration with Ontario Breast Screening Program with the intent of using them as a national standard in Canada. The quality control tests developed for the ACRIN DMIST study were used as the starting point for the new tests; however, due to the recent implementation of AEC algorithms by some manufacturers, it has become difficult to use the uniform phantom suggested by DMIST work. To address this, a simple 19 cm diameter semicircle uniform phantom was designed. Furthermore, it was found that the technologist weekly image quality test should be performed on “FOR PRESENTATION” images so that changes in image processing algorithms (similar to changes in film processing conditions) can be identified. IHE Mammography Integration Profile compliance was also included as part of the Medical Physicists tests. The new unified quality control procedures have been adopted as the standard in the province of BC for more than two years. This unified approach has made it possible to streamline and manage the quality control of screening mammography facilities within the province. The technologist weekly image quality test done with “FOR PRESENTATION” images instead of “FOR PROCESSING” images (as suggested by ACRIN DMIST study findings) have uncovered changes in image processing algorithms that were implemented by manufacturers without the knowledge of the users. The new semicircle uniform phantom is found to be suitable for testing the AEC performance of every digital mammography unit used in the province of BC. Due to the success in the use of the new unified QC tests in the province of BC, we are in the process of promoting this as a national standard for digital mammography quality control in Canada. This presentation will provide an overview of the development and implementation of these vendor neutral unified quality control procedures and its advantages. Learning Objectives: 1. Understand the type of testing required for Digital mammography systems. 2. Understand the advantages of a unified QA procedure. 3. Understand some of the technical and logistical issues involved in implementing vendor neutral QA procedures. 4. Understand the importance of using IHE Mammography Integration Profile as part of the Medical Physicist testing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207