249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16878576)
1. Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial.
Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist AK; Mawdsley GE; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Fajardo LL; Boone JM; Kanal K; Mahesh M; Fleischman RC; Och J; Williams MB; Beideck DJ; Maidment AD
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):737-52. PubMed ID: 16878576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology.
Pisano ED; Gatsonis CA; Yaffe MJ; Hendrick RE; Tosteson AN; Fryback DG; Bassett LW; Baum JK; Conant EF; Jong RA; Rebner M; D'Orsi CJ
Radiology; 2005 Aug; 236(2):404-12. PubMed ID: 15961755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Applicability of ACR breast dosimetry methodology to a digital mammography system.
Tomon JJ; Johnson TE; Swenson KN; Schauer DA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):799-807. PubMed ID: 16878582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Current challenges of full field digital mammography.
Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H; Van Steen A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):148-53. PubMed ID: 16461520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.
Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Cole EB; Marques HS; Yaffe MJ; Blevins M; Conant EF; Hendrick RE; Baum JK; Fajardo LL; Jong RA; Koomen MA; Kuzmiak CM; Lee Y; Pavic D; Yoon SC; Padungchaichote W; Gatsonis C
Radiology; 2009 Aug; 252(2):348-57. PubMed ID: 19703878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Current status and issues of screening digital mammography in Japan.
Yamada T
Breast Cancer; 2010 Jul; 17(3):163-8. PubMed ID: 20143190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector.
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
Cole EB; Zhang Z; Marques HS; Nishikawa RM; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Padungchaichote W; Kuzmiak C; Chayakulkheeree J; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Baum J; Gatsonis C; Pisano E
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Sep; 199(3):W392-401. PubMed ID: 22915432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.
Schueller G; Riedl CC; Mallek R; Eibenberger K; Langenberger H; Kaindl E; Kulinna-Cosentini C; Rudas M; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):487-96. PubMed ID: 17890036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [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]
16. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.
Del Turco MR; Mantellini P; Ciatto S; Bonardi R; Martinelli F; Lazzari B; Houssami N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Oct; 189(4):860-6. PubMed ID: 17885057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. On the noise variance of a digital mammography system.
Burgess A
Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):1987-95. PubMed ID: 15305451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography.
Feig SA; Yaffe MJ
Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1205-30. PubMed ID: 7480666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
