295 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17070449)
1. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography.
Saunders RS; Samei E; Baker J; Delong D; Soo MS; Walsh R; Pisano E; Kuzmiak CM; Pavic D
Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26. PubMed ID: 17070449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.
Uematsu T; Kasami M; Uchida Y
Acta Radiol; 2007 Sep; 48(7):714-20. PubMed ID: 17729000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study.
Kamitani T; Yabuuchi H; Soeda H; Matsuo Y; Okafuji T; Sakai S; Furuya A; Hatakenaka M; Ishii N; Honda H
Eur Radiol; 2007 May; 17(5):1365-71. PubMed ID: 17093968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions.
Krupinski EA; Johnson J; Roehrig H; Nafziger J; Lubin J
Acad Radiol; 2005 Aug; 12(8):957-64. PubMed ID: 16023384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Use of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images.
Krupinski EA; Johnson J; Roehrig H; Nafziger J; Fan J; Lubin J
J Digit Imaging; 2004 Dec; 17(4):258-63. PubMed ID: 15692869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Diagnostic performance in differentiation of breast lesion on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel LCD monitor, and 5-megapixel LCD monitor.
Kamitani T; Yabuuchi H; Matsuo Y; Setoguchi T; Sakai S; Okafuji T; Sunami S; Hatakenaka M; Ishii N; Kubo M; Tokunaga E; Yamamoto H; Honda H
Clin Imaging; 2011; 35(5):341-5. PubMed ID: 21872122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Full-field digital mammography on LCD versus CRT monitors.
Zuley ML; Willison KM; Bonaccio E; Miller DP; Leong DL; Seifert PJ; Somerville P; Destounis S
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):1492-8. PubMed ID: 17114542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance.
Samei E; Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):396-404. PubMed ID: 17356178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Observer study for evaluating potential utility of a super-high-resolution LCD in the detection of clustered microcalcifications on digital mammograms.
Shiraishi J; Abe H; Ichikawa K; Schmidt RA; Doi K
J Digit Imaging; 2010 Apr; 23(2):161-9. PubMed ID: 19277785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitors and 5-megapixel liquid crystal monitors for soft-copy reading in full-field digital mammography.
Schueller G; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Pinker K; Memarsadeghi M; Weber M; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2010 Oct; 76(1):68-72. PubMed ID: 19481396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The influence of a perceptually linearized display on observer performance and visual search.
Krupinski EA; Roehrig H
Acad Radiol; 2000 Jan; 7(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 10645452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Comparison of LCD and CRT monitors for detection of pulmonary nodules and interstitial lung diseases on digital chest radiographs by using receiver operating characteristic analysis].
Ikeda R; Katsuragawa S; Shimonobou T; Hiai Y; Hashida M; Awai K; Yamashita Y; Doi K
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2006 May; 62(5):734-41. PubMed ID: 16733502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Simulation of mammographic lesions.
Saunders R; Samei E; Baker J; Delong D
Acad Radiol; 2006 Jul; 13(7):860-70. PubMed ID: 16777560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Intra- and interobserver agreement and performance score of breast phantom image interpretation: influence of ambient room lighting levels.
Koyama K; Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Muramoto H; Satake H; Sawaki A; Kato K; Fukushima H; Ishigaki T
Nagoya J Med Sci; 2006 Jun; 68(3-4):147-53. PubMed ID: 16967781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. SCAR R&D Symposium 2003: comparing the efficacy of 5-MP CRT versus 3-MP LCD in the evaluation of interstitial lung disease.
Langer S; Bartholmai B; Fetterly K; Harmsen S; Ryan W; Erickson B; Andriole K; Carrino J
J Digit Imaging; 2004 Sep; 17(3):149-57. PubMed ID: 15534750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
