204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17356178)
1. 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]
2. Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies.
Ruschin M; Timberg P; Båth M; Hemdal B; Svahn T; Saunders RS; Samei E; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Chakrabort DP; Tingber A
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):400-7. PubMed ID: 17388156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography: sensitivity and reproducibility in serial examinations.
Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Cha JH; Kim SM; Im JG
Radiology; 2008 Jan; 246(1):71-80. PubMed ID: 18096530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Breast Cancer: Computer-aided Detection with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Morra L; Sacchetto D; Durando M; Agliozzo S; Carbonaro LA; Delsanto S; Pesce B; Persano D; Mariscotti G; Marra V; Fonio P; Bert A
Radiology; 2015 Oct; 277(1):56-63. PubMed ID: 25961633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effect of image processing on the detection of cancers in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Halling-Brown MD; Mackenzie A; Chakraborty DP; Bosmans H; Dance DR; Young KC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Aug; 203(2):387-93. PubMed ID: 25055275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Conspicuity of microcalcifications on digital screening mammograms using varying degrees of monitor zooming.
Haygood TM; Arribas E; Brennan PC; Atkinson EN; Herndon M; Dieber J; Geiser W; Santiago L; Mills CM; Davis P; Adrada B; Carkaci S; Stephens TW; Whitman GJ
Acad Radiol; 2009 Dec; 16(12):1509-17. PubMed ID: 19896068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.
Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Funke M; Grabbe EH
Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2188-91. PubMed ID: 12195468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. [Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography].
Diekmann S; Bick U; von Heyden H; Diekmann F
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):775-9. PubMed ID: 12811689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography.
Uematsu T
Jpn J Radiol; 2009 May; 27(4):168-75. PubMed ID: 19499307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Visibility of microcalcification clusters and masses in breast tomosynthesis image volumes and digital mammography: a 4AFC human observer study.
Timberg P; Baath M; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Ruschin M
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2431-7. PubMed ID: 22559613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [The diagnostic accuracy of a digital mammography system with photostimulable storage phosphors used with automatic reading].
Panizza P; Rodighiero MG; De Gaspari A; Tacchini S; Camalori M; Del Maschio A
Radiol Med; 1996; 91(1-2):46-51. PubMed ID: 8614730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes.
Glynn CG; Farria DM; Monsees BS; Salcman JT; Wiele KN; Hildebolt CF
Radiology; 2011 Sep; 260(3):664-70. PubMed ID: 21788529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
