482 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10705143)
1. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Storage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography--a phantom study.
Funke M; Breiter N; Hermann KP; Oestmann JW; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 1998 May; 71(845):528-34. PubMed ID: 9691898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Digital storage phosphor mammography in a magnification technic: experimental studies for spatial resolution and for detection of microcalcifications].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Hundertmark C; Sachs J; Gruhl T; Sperner W; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1997 Aug; 167(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 9333359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.
Kim HH; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Jiroutek MR; Muller KE; Zheng Y; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 16794154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography].
Diekmann S; Bick U; von Heyden H; Diekmann F
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):775-9. PubMed ID: 12811689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.
Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Funke M; Grabbe EH
Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2188-91. PubMed ID: 12195468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.
Cole E; Pisano ED; Brown M; Kuzmiak C; Braeuning MP; Kim HH; Jong R; Walsh R
Acad Radiol; 2004 Aug; 11(8):879-86. PubMed ID: 15288038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].
Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W
Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with conventional screen film system (SFS), digital phosphor storage plate in/without magnification technique (CR) and digital CCD-technique (CCD).
Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Säbel M; Böhner C; Dobritz M; Wenkel E; Bautz W
Rontgenpraxis; 2001; 54(4):123-6. PubMed ID: 11883115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Full-field digital mammography: dose-dependent detectability of breast lesions and microcalcinosis].
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Schorn C; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2000 Dec; 172(12):1052-6. PubMed ID: 11199434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Improvement of detectability of microcalcifications by magnification digital mammography].
Higashida Y; Hatemura M; Yoshida A; Takada T; Takahashi M
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Aug; 58(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 9778932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
Wiebringhaus R; John V; Müller RD; Hirche H; Voss M; Callies R
Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a low-contrast phantom.
Krug KB; Stützer H; Schröder R; Boecker J; Poggenborg J; Lackner K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Sep; 191(3):W80-8. PubMed ID: 18716083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Objective assessment of image quality in conventional and digital mammography taking into account dynamic range.
Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):380-2. PubMed ID: 15933141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Michielsen K; Cockmartin L; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 43(9):5104. PubMed ID: 27587041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
