160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11997557)
1. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.
Pisano ED; Cole EB; Kistner EO; Muller KE; Hemminger BM; Brown ML; Johnston RE; Kuzmiak CM; Braeuning MP; Freimanis RI; Soo MS; Baker JA; Walsh R
Radiology; 2002 May; 223(2):483-8. PubMed ID: 11997557
[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. 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]
4. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance.
Cole EB; Pisano ED; Zeng D; Muller K; Aylward SR; Park S; Kuzmiak C; Koomen M; Pavic D; Walsh R; Baker J; Gimenez EI; Freimanis R
Acad Radiol; 2005 May; 12(5):585-95. PubMed ID: 15866131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.
Nishikawa RM; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Marques HS; D'Orsi CJ; Farria DM; Kanal KM; Mahoney MC; Rebner M; Staiger MJ;
Radiology; 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 19332845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group.
Pisano ED; Cole EB; Major S; Zong S; Hemminger BM; Muller KE; Johnston RE; Walsh R; Conant E; Fajardo LL; Feig SA; Nishikawa RM; Yaffe MJ; Williams MB; Aylward SR
Radiology; 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30. PubMed ID: 10966717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. [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]
10. Detection of breast cancer by soft-copy reading of digital mammograms: comparison between a routine image-processing parameter and high-contrast parameters.
Kamitani T; Yabuuchi H; Soeda H; Matsuo Y; Okafuji T; Sakai S; Setoguchi T; Hatakenaka M; Ishii N; Honda H
Acta Radiol; 2010 Feb; 51(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 19922328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. LCD versus CRT monitors for digital mammography: a comparison of observer performance for the detection of clustered microcalcifications and masses.
Cha JH; Moon WK; Cho N; Lee EH; Park JS; Jang MJ
Acta Radiol; 2009 Dec; 50(10):1104-8. PubMed ID: 19922305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
Uematsu T; Kasami M
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations.
Gitlin JN; Narayan AK; Mitchell CA; Akmal AM; Eisner DJ; Peterson LM; Nie D; McClintock TR
J Digit Imaging; 2007 Mar; 20(1):42-52. PubMed ID: 17191103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizer.
Gitlin JN; Scott WW; Bell K; Narayan A
J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1(2):57-63. PubMed ID: 12105698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Marten K; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Skaane P; Grabbe E
J Digit Imaging; 2003 Dec; 16(4):341-4. PubMed ID: 14749966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Improved interpretation of digitized mammography with wavelet processing: a localization response operating characteristic study.
Kallergi M; Heine JJ; Berman CG; Hersh MR; Romilly AP; Clark RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Mar; 182(3):697-703. PubMed ID: 14975972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Interpretation of calcifications in screen/film, digitized, and wavelet-enhanced monitor-displayed mammograms: a receiver operating characteristic study.
Kallergi M; Clarke LP; Qian W; Gavrielides M; Venugopal P; Berman CG; Holman-Ferris SD; Miller MS; Clark RA
Acad Radiol; 1996 Apr; 3(4):285-93. PubMed ID: 8796676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.
Cole EB; Pisano ED; Kistner EO; Muller KE; Brown ME; Feig SA; Jong RA; Maidment AD; Staiger MJ; Kuzmiak CM; Freimanis RI; Lesko N; Rosen EL; Walsh R; Williford M; Braeuning MP
Radiology; 2003 Jan; 226(1):153-60. PubMed ID: 12511684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Film-screen mammography versus digital storage plate mammography: hard copy and monitor display of microcalcifications and focal findings--a retrospective clinical and histologic analysis].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Aichinger U; Tartsch M; Kuchar I; Bödicker A; Evertsz C; Peitgen HO; Bautz W
Rofo; 2003 Sep; 175(9):1220-4. PubMed ID: 12964077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study.
Hendrick RE; Cole EB; Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Marques H; Cohen MA; Jong RA; Mawdsley GE; Kanal KM; D'Orsi CJ; Rebner M; Gatsonis C
Radiology; 2008 Apr; 247(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 18372463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
