Multi-modal ultrasound imaging for breast cancer detection

This work describes preliminary results of a two-modality imaging system aimed at the early detection of breast cancer. The first technique is based on compounding conventional echographic images taken at regular angular intervals around the imaged breast. The other modality obtains tomographic images of propagation velocity using the same circular geometry. For this study, a low-cost prototype has been built. It is based on a pair of opposed 128-element, 3.2 MHz array transducers that are mechanically moved around tissue mimicking phantoms. Compounded images around 360 degrees provide improved resolution, clutter reduction, artifact suppression and reinforce the visualization of internal structures. However, refraction at the skin interface must be corrected for an accurate image compounding process. This is achieved by estimation of the interface geometry followed by computing the internal ray paths. On the other hand, sound velocity tomographic images from time of flight projections have been also obtained. Two reconstruction methods, Filtered Back Projection (FBP) and 2D Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (2D OSEM), were used as a first attempt towards tomographic reconstruction. These methods yield useable images in short computational times that can be considered as initial estimates in subsequent more complex methods of ultrasound image reconstruction. These images may be effective to differentiate malignant and benign masses and are very promising for breast cancer screening. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

The interpretation of scholars' interpretations of confidence intervals: criticism, replication, and extension of Hoekstra et al. (2014)

Hoekstra et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2014, 21:1157–1164) surveyed the interpretation of confidence intervals (CIs) by first-year students, master students, and researchers with six items expressing misinterpretations of CIs. They asked respondents to answer all items, computed the number of items endorsed, and concluded that misinterpretation of CIs is robust across groups. Their design may have produced this outcome artifactually for reasons that we describe. This paper discusses first the two interpretations of CIs and, hence, why misinterpretation cannot be inferred from endorsement of some of the items. Next, a re-analysis of Hoekstra et al.’s data reveals some puzzling differences between first-year and master students that demand further investigation. For that purpose, we designed a replication study with an extended questionnaire including two additional items that express correct interpretations of CIs (to compare endorsement of correct vs. nominally incorrect interpretations) and we asked master students to indicate which items they would have omitted had they had the option (to distinguish deliberate from uninformed endorsement caused by the forced-response format). Results showed that incognizant first-year students endorsed correct and nominally incorrect items identically, revealing that the two item types are not differentially attractive superficially; in contrast, master students were distinctively more prone to endorsing correct items when their uninformed responses were removed, although they admitted to nescience more often that might have been expected. Implications for teaching practices are discussed.