title: Detection of microcalcifications on digital screening mammograms using varying degrees of monitor zooming.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The American College of Radiology recommends that mammogram images be viewed at 100% resolution (also called one-to-one or full resolution). We tested the effect of this and three other levels of zooming on the ability of radiologists to identify malignant calcifications on screening mammographic views.
  
  
  METHODS
  Seven breast imagers viewed 77 mammographic images, 32 with and 45 without malignant microcalcifications, using four different degrees of monitor zooming. The readers indicated whether they thought a cluster of potentially malignant calcifications was present and where the cluster was located. Tested degrees of zooming included fit screen, a size midway between fit screen and 100%, 100%, and a size slightly larger than 100%.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Readers failed to detect 17 clusters of malignant calcifications with fit-screen images, 12 clusters with midway images, 13 clusters with 100% images, and 11 clusters with slightly larger images. When viewing images without malignant microcalcifications, the readers marked false-positive areas on 25 images using fit-screen images, 43 of the midway images, 40 of the 100% images, and 29 of the slightly larger images.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  All four tested levels of zooming functioned well. There was a trend for the fit-screen images to function slightly less well than the others with regard to sensitivity, so it may not be prudent to rely on those images without other levels of zooming. The 100% resolution images did not function noticeably better than the others.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA. bblaylock@mdanderson.org
authors.forename: Tamara Miner
authors.initials: TM
authors.lastname: Haygood
authors.forename: Elsa
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Arribas
authors.forename: Qing Mary Ashley
authors.initials: QM
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: E Neely
authors.initials: EN
authors.lastname: Atkinson
authors.forename: Patrick C
authors.initials: PC
authors.lastname: Brennan
authors.forename: Lumarie
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Santiago
authors.forename: Selin
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Carkaci
authors.forename: Deanna
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Lane
authors.forename: Tanya W
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Stephens
authors.forename: Huong
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: LePetross
authors.forename: Beatriz
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Adrada
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Davis
authors.forename: Gary J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Whitman
mesh_terms: D001941:Breast Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D002114:Calcinosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000379:methods*; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D015588:Observer Variation; D011230:Precancerous Conditions / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity