1236 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17242245)
1. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mammography screening using independent double reading with consensus: is there a potential benefit for computer-aided detection?
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Hofvind S; Jahr G; Castellino RA
Acta Radiol; 2012 Apr; 53(3):241-8. PubMed ID: 22287148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.
Karssemeijer N; Bluekens AM; Beijerinck D; Deurenberg JJ; Beekman M; Visser R; van Engen R; Bartels-Kortland A; Broeders MJ
Radiology; 2009 Nov; 253(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 19703851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mammographic features of breast cancers at single reading with computer-aided detection and at double reading in a large multicenter prospective trial of computer-aided detection: CADET II.
James JJ; Gilbert FJ; Wallis MG; Gillan MG; Astley SM; Boggis CR; Agbaje OF; Brentnall AR; Duffy SW
Radiology; 2010 Aug; 256(2):379-86. PubMed ID: 20656831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography: a detailed comparison of computer-aided detection-assisted single reading and double reading.
Cawson JN; Nickson C; Amos A; Hill G; Whan AB; Kavanagh AM
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Oct; 53(5):442-9. PubMed ID: 19788479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.
Skaane P; Skjennald A
Radiology; 2004 Jul; 232(1):197-204. PubMed ID: 15155893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.
Skaane P; Skjennald A; Young K; Egge E; Jebsen I; Sager EM; Scheel B; Søvik E; Ertzaas AK; Hofvind S; Abdelnoor M
Acta Radiol; 2005 Nov; 46(7):679-89. PubMed ID: 16372686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.
Skaane P; Hofvind S; Skjennald A
Radiology; 2007 Sep; 244(3):708-17. PubMed ID: 17709826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Computer-aided detection of masses in full-field digital mammography using screen-film mammograms for training.
Kallenberg M; Karssemeijer N
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Dec; 53(23):6879-91. PubMed ID: 19001703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study.
Skaane P; Young K; Skjennald A
Radiology; 2003 Dec; 229(3):877-84. PubMed ID: 14576447
[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. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.
Vinnicombe S; Pinto Pereira SM; McCormack VA; Shiel S; Perry N; Dos Santos Silva IM
Radiology; 2009 May; 251(2):347-58. PubMed ID: 19401569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography.
Georgian-Smith D; Moore RH; Halpern E; Yeh ED; Rafferty EA; D'Alessandro HA; Staffa M; Hall DA; McCarthy KA; Kopans DB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Nov; 189(5):1135-41. PubMed ID: 17954651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.
Yang SK; Moon WK; Cho N; Park JS; Cha JH; Kim SM; Kim SJ; Im JG
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 17507722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Computer-aided detection system for clustered microcalcifications: comparison of performance on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms.
Ge J; Hadjiiski LM; Sahiner B; Wei J; Helvie MA; Zhou C; Chan HP
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Feb; 52(4):981-1000. PubMed ID: 17264365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers.
Sadaf A; Crystal P; Scaranelo A; Helbich T
Eur J Radiol; 2011 Mar; 77(3):457-61. PubMed ID: 19875260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Discordant and false-negative interpretations at digital breast tomosynthesis in the prospective Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) using independent double reading.
Skaane P; Østerås BH; Yanakiev S; Lie T; Eben EB; Gullien R; Brandal SHB
Eur Radiol; 2024 Jun; 34(6):3912-3923. PubMed ID: 37938385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening.
Yamada T; Saito M; Ishibashi T; Tsuboi M; Matsuhashi T; Sato A; Saito H; Takahashi S; Onuki K; Ouchi N
Radiat Med; 2004; 22(6):408-12. PubMed ID: 15648457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
