233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15895583)
1. ROC study of the effect of stereoscopic imaging on assessment of breast lesions.
Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski LM; Lydick JT; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Nees A; Blane CE; Sahiner B
Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1001-9. PubMed ID: 15895583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of magnification and zooming on depth perception in digital stereomammography: an observer performance study.
Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Hadjiiski LM; Bailey JE; Klein K; Darner KL; Sahiner B
Phys Med Biol; 2003 Nov; 48(22):3721-34. PubMed ID: 14680269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The effects of stereo shift angle, geometric magnification and display zoom on depth measurements in digital stereomammography.
Goodsitt MM; Chan HP; Darner KL; Hadjiiski LM
Med Phys; 2002 Nov; 29(11):2725-34. PubMed ID: 12462741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection.
Webb LJ; Samei E; Lo JY; Baker JA; Ghate SV; Kim C; Soo MS; Walsh R
Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):1972-80. PubMed ID: 21626930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Visibility of simulated microcalcifications--a hardcopy-based comparison of three mammographic systems.
Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Whitman GJ; Johnston DA; Yang WT; Selinko V; Arribas E; Dogan B; Kappadath SC
Med Phys; 2005 Jan; 32(1):182-94. PubMed ID: 15719969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Digital mammography: comparative performance of color LCD and monochrome CRT displays.
Samei E; Poolla A; Ulissey MJ; Lewin JM
Acad Radiol; 2007 May; 14(5):539-46. PubMed ID: 17434067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical performance metrics of 3D stereoscopic digital mammography compared with 2D digital mammography: observer study.
Daidoji A; Aoki T; Murakami S; Miyata M; Fujii M; Katsuki T; Inoue Y; Tashima Y; Nagata Y; Hirata K; Tanaka F; Korogi Y
Br J Radiol; 2018 Jun; 91(1086):20170908. PubMed ID: 29319344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Visual-search observers for assessing tomographic x-ray image quality.
Gifford HC; Liang Z; Das M
Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1563-75. PubMed ID: 26936739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Stereomammography: evaluation of depth perception using a virtual 3D cursor.
Goodsitt MM; Chan HP; Hadjiiski L
Med Phys; 2000 Jun; 27(6):1305-10. PubMed ID: 10902560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Adler DD; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Blane CE; Joynt LK; Wilson TE; Hadjiiski LM; Goodsitt MM
Acad Radiol; 2001 Jun; 8(6):454-66. PubMed ID: 11394537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model.
Krug KB; Stützer H; Girnus R; Zähringer M; Gossmann A; Winnekendonk G; Lackner K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):399-407. PubMed ID: 17242248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study.
Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Petrick N; Roubidoux MA; Wilson TE; Adler DD; Paramagul C; Newman JS; Sanjay-Gopal S
Radiology; 1999 Sep; 212(3):817-27. PubMed ID: 10478252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Comparison between electronic zoom and geometric magnification of clusters of microcalcifications on digital mammography].
Moraux-Wallyn M; Chaveron C; Bachelle F; Taieb S; Ceugnart L
J Radiol; 2010 Sep; 91(9 Pt 1):879-83. PubMed ID: 20814375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).
Rong XJ; Shaw CC; Johnston DA; Lemacks MR; Liu X; Whitman GJ; Dryden MJ; Stephens TW; Thompson SK; Krugh KT; Lai CJ
Med Phys; 2002 Sep; 29(9):2052-61. PubMed ID: 12349926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [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]
19. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance.
Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM; Johnson JP; Samei E
Med Phys; 2007 Oct; 34(10):3971-81. PubMed ID: 17985642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
