164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12511684)
21. Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis and breast ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a prospective comparison study.
Kim WH; Chang JM; Lee J; Chu AJ; Seo M; Gweon HM; Koo HR; Lee SH; Cho N; Bae MS; Shin SU; Song SE; Moon WK
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Feb; 162(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 28083822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography.
Glueck DH; Lamb MM; Lewin JM; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2007 Jun; 14(6):670-6. PubMed ID: 17502256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Teleradiology with uncompressed digital mammograms: clinical assessment.
Fruehwald-Pallamar J; Jantsch M; Pinker K; Hofmeister R; Semturs F; Piegler K; Staribacher D; Weber M; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2013 Mar; 82(3):412-6. PubMed ID: 22497772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Evaluation of the effect of zoom function on lesion detection by soft-copy reading of screening mammograms.
Trieu PD; Brennan P; Giuffre B; Mello-Thoms C; Tapia K; Santangelo N; Kim H; Cameron K; Hayter C; Da Costa G; Sterba J; Lee W
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2015 Jun; 59(3):292-9. PubMed ID: 25828255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. The effect of image processing on the detection of cancers in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Halling-Brown MD; Mackenzie A; Chakraborty DP; Bosmans H; Dance DR; Young KC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Aug; 203(2):387-93. PubMed ID: 25055275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Artificial intelligence assistance for women who had spot compression view: reducing recall rates for digital mammography.
Lee SE; Kim GR; Yoon JH; Han K; Son WJ; Shin HJ; Moon HJ
Acta Radiol; 2023 May; 64(5):1808-1815. PubMed ID: 36426409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Evaluation of low-cost telemammography screening configurations: a comparison with film-screen readings in vulnerable areas.
Salazar AJ; Romero J; Bernal O; Moreno A; Velasco S; Díaz X
J Digit Imaging; 2014 Oct; 27(5):679-86. PubMed ID: 24802372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting.
Venta LA; Hendrick RE; Adler YT; DeLeon P; Mengoni PM; Scharl AM; Comstock CE; Hansen L; Kay N; Coveler A; Cutter G
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 May; 176(5):1241-8. PubMed ID: 11312188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?
Bick U; Diekmann F
Eur Radiol; 2007 Aug; 17(8):1931-42. PubMed ID: 17429645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Computer-assisted diagnosis in full-field digital mammography--results in dependence of readers experiences.
Sohns C; Angic B; Sossalla S; Konietschke F; Obenauer S
Breast J; 2010; 16(5):490-7. PubMed ID: 20642459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience.
Jong RA; Yaffe MJ; Skarpathiotakis M; Shumak RS; Danjoux NM; Gunesekara A; Plewes DB
Radiology; 2003 Sep; 228(3):842-50. PubMed ID: 12881585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Spectral phase based medical image processing.
Kothapalli SR; Yelleswarapu CS; Naraharisetty SG; Wu P; Rao DV
Acad Radiol; 2005 Jun; 12(6):708-21. PubMed ID: 15935969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Comparison of the diagnostic efficiency in breast malignancy between cone beam breast CT and mammography in dense breast].
Liu AD; Ma Y; Yin L; Han P; Li HJ; Ye ZX
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2018 Aug; 40(8):604-609. PubMed ID: 30139031
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.
Burton A; Byrnes G; Stone J; Tamimi RM; Heine J; Vachon C; Ozmen V; Pereira A; Garmendia ML; Scott C; Hipwell JH; Dickens C; Schüz J; Aribal ME; Bertrand K; Kwong A; Giles GG; Hopper J; Pérez Gómez B; Pollán M; Teo SH; Mariapun S; Taib NA; Lajous M; Lopez-Riduara R; Rice M; Romieu I; Flugelman AA; Ursin G; Qureshi S; Ma H; Lee E; Sirous R; Sirous M; Lee JW; Kim J; Salem D; Kamal R; Hartman M; Miao H; Chia KS; Nagata C; Vinayak S; Ndumia R; van Gils CH; Wanders JO; Peplonska B; Bukowska A; Allen S; Vinnicombe S; Moss S; Chiarelli AM; Linton L; Maskarinec G; Yaffe MJ; Boyd NF; Dos-Santos-Silva I; McCormack VA
Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Dec; 18(1):130. PubMed ID: 27993168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms.
Haygood TM; Wang J; Atkinson EN; Lane D; Stephens TW; Patel P; Whitman GJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Jan; 192(1):216-20. PubMed ID: 19098202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay.
Pisano ED; Cole EB; Hemminger BM; Yaffe MJ; Aylward SR; Maidment AD; Johnston RE; Williams MB; Niklason LT; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Kopans DB; Brown ME; Pizer SM
Radiographics; 2000; 20(5):1479-91. PubMed ID: 10992035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial.
Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H; Van Steen A; Joossens K; Celis V; Van Goethem M; Verslegers I; Nijs K; Rogge F; Marchal G
Eur Radiol; 2006 Jun; 16(6):1360-6. PubMed ID: 16518656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography?
Huda W; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR; Bertrand EA
Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1355-66. PubMed ID: 17070453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
