Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Film processing for mammography.

J Law1, A E Kirkpatrick

  • 1Department of Medical Physics, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh.

The British Journal of Radiology
|October 1, 1988
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A practical evidence-based approach to management of type 2 diabetes in children and young people (CYP): UK consensus.

BMC medicine·2024
Same author

Periplasmic stress contributes to a tradeoff between protein secretion and cell growth in E. Coli Nissile.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2023
Same author

A Modular Digital Twinning Framework for Safety Assurance of Collaborative Robotics.

Frontiers in robotics and AI·2022
Same author

Intracellular manipulation and measurement with multipole magnetic tweezers.

Science robotics·2020
Same author

Decision-making for older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: defining patient and clinician values and priorities.

Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland·2020
Same author

Association between preadmission frailty and care level at discharge in older adults undergoing emergency laparotomy.

The British journal of surgery·2020
Same journal

Machine learning models using 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomics for RAS mutation prediction and prognostic stratification in colorectal cancer.

The British journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

Predictors of Relapse in Oligometastatic Prostate Patients Receiving Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy.

The British journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

An Evaluation of Radiotherapy and Response in the Management of Perivascular Epithelioid Cell Tumors.

The British journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

Ensuring radiology reporting quality across a national lung cancer screening programme.

The British journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

Utility of High-Resolution Semiconductor Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Assessment of Breast Cancer Extent: Comparison with Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

The British journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

Airway Imaging Practices in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia: A Global Survey to Guide Standardized Guidelines.

The British journal of radiology·2026
See all related articles

Optimizing mammogram processing, this study found that longer times and higher temperatures improve image quality and reduce patient dose. An ideal processing regime of 3.5 minutes at 36°C is recommended for mammography screening programs.

Area of Science:

  • Radiology
  • Medical Imaging Technology
  • Health Physics

Background:

  • Mammography is crucial for early breast cancer detection.
  • Image quality and patient dose are key considerations in mammographic screening.
  • Standardized processing parameters are essential for consistent diagnostic accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the impact of processing time and temperature on mammogram image quality.
  • To evaluate the effect of these parameters on patient radiation dose.
  • To determine optimal processing conditions for mammography screening.

Main Methods:

  • Seven mammography film processors from different manufacturers were tested.
  • Processing times ranged from 2.5 to 4 minutes.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Processing temperatures varied between 30°C and 36°C.
  • Image quality and patient dose were assessed under different conditions.

    • Main Results:

    • Image quality remained consistent across different processors and methods, with minor exceptions.
    • Longer processing times (up to 4 minutes) and higher temperatures (up to 36°C) were found to be advantageous.
    • These parameters positively influenced patient dose reduction.
    • No significant variations in image quality were observed based on processor design or mechanism.

    Conclusions:

    • Processing time and temperature significantly affect mammogram image quality and patient dose.
    • An optimal processing regime of 3.5 minutes at 36°C is proposed.
    • These findings have important implications for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of mammography screening programs.