160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15717938)
41. Efficiency of cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening: two versus one view mammography.
Blanks RG; Given-Wilson RM; Moss SM
J Med Screen; 1998; 5(3):141-5. PubMed ID: 9795875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. External Evaluation of 3 Commercial Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Independent Assessment of Screening Mammograms.
Salim M; Wåhlin E; Dembrower K; Azavedo E; Foukakis T; Liu Y; Smith K; Eklund M; Strand F
JAMA Oncol; 2020 Oct; 6(10):1581-1588. PubMed ID: 32852536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Comparison of standard reading and computer aided diagnosis (CAD) on a proficiency test of screening mammography.
Ciatto S; Brancato B; Rosselli Del Turco M; Risso G; Catarzi S; Morrone D; Bricolo D; Zappa M
Radiol Med; 2003; 106(1-2):59-65. PubMed ID: 12951552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Computer-based detection and prompting of mammographic abnormalities.
Astley SM
Br J Radiol; 2004; 77 Spec No 2():S194-200. PubMed ID: 15677361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.
Torres-Mejía G; Smith RA; Carranza-Flores Mde L; Bogart A; Martínez-Matsushita L; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Ortega-Olvera C; Montemayor-Varela E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Bautista-Arredondo S; Sánchez-González G; Martínez-Montañez OG; Uscanga-Sánchez SR; Lazcano-Ponce E; Hernández-Ávila M
BMC Cancer; 2015 May; 15():410. PubMed ID: 25975383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Cost-effectiveness analysis for breast cancer screening: double reading versus single + CAD reading.
Sato M; Kawai M; Nishino Y; Shibuya D; Ohuchi N; Ishibashi T
Breast Cancer; 2014 Sep; 21(5):532-41. PubMed ID: 23104393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software.
Paquerault S; Samuelson FW; Petrick N; Myers KJ; Smith RC
Acad Radiol; 2009 Sep; 16(9):1095-107. PubMed ID: 19523855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Computed assisted detection of interval breast cancers.
Moberg K; Bjurstam N; Wilczek B; Rostgård L; Egge E; Muren C
Eur J Radiol; 2001 Aug; 39(2):104-10. PubMed ID: 11522419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Computer-aided detection output on 172 subtle findings on normal mammograms previously obtained in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography.
Ikeda DM; Birdwell RL; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA; Brenner RJ
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):811-9. PubMed ID: 14764891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Noble M; Bruening W; Uhl S; Schoelles K
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2009 Jun; 279(6):881-90. PubMed ID: 19023581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Optimum screening mammography reading volumes: evidence from the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Cornford E; Cheung S; Press M; Kearins O; Taylor-Phillips S
Eur Radiol; 2021 Sep; 31(9):6909-6915. PubMed ID: 33630161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Computer-aided detection in mammography.
Astley SM; Gilbert FJ
Clin Radiol; 2004 May; 59(5):390-9. PubMed ID: 15081844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial.
Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Makariou E; Chan HP; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Lo SC; Freedman M; Adler D; Bailey J; Blane C; Hoff D; Hunt K; Joynt L; Klein K; Paramagul C; Patterson SK; Roubidoux MA
Radiology; 2004 Apr; 231(1):208-14. PubMed ID: 14990808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. CAD in full-field digital mammography-influence of reader experience and application of CAD on interpretation of time.
Sohns C; Angic BC; Sossalla S; Konietschke F; Obenauer S
Clin Imaging; 2010; 34(6):418-24. PubMed ID: 21092870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Computer-aided detection for computed tomographic colonography screening: a prospective comparison of a double-reading paradigm with first-reader computer-aided detection against second-reader computer-aided detection.
Iussich G; Correale L; Senore C; Hassan C; Segnan N; Campanella D; Bert A; Galatola G; Laudi C; Regge D
Invest Radiol; 2014 Mar; 49(3):173-82. PubMed ID: 24442160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography.
Gilbert FJ; Astley SM; Gillan MG; Agbaje OF; Wallis MG; James J; Boggis CR; Duffy SW;
N Engl J Med; 2008 Oct; 359(16):1675-84. PubMed ID: 18832239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Comparison of standard reading and computer aided detection (CAD) on a national proficiency test of screening mammography.
Ciatto S; Del Turco MR; Risso G; Catarzi S; Bonardi R; Viterbo V; Gnutti P; Guglielmoni B; Pinelli L; Pandiscia A; Navarra F; Lauria A; Palmiero R; Indovina PL
Eur J Radiol; 2003 Feb; 45(2):135-8. PubMed ID: 12536093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography in a clinical population: performance of radiologist and technologists.
van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Boetes C; Flobbe K
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2010 Apr; 120(2):499-506. PubMed ID: 19418215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography.
Cole EB; Zhang Z; Marques HS; Edward Hendrick R; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Oct; 203(4):909-16. PubMed ID: 25247960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Range of Radiologist Performance in a Population-based Screening Cohort of 1 Million Digital Mammography Examinations.
Salim M; Dembrower K; Eklund M; Lindholm P; Strand F
Radiology; 2020 Oct; 297(1):33-39. PubMed ID: 32720866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
