186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19001703)
21. 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]
22. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening program: The Sogn and Fjordane study.
Juel IM; Skaane P; Hoff SR; Johannessen G; Hofvind S
Acta Radiol; 2010 Nov; 51(9):962-8. PubMed ID: 20942729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Moving into the digital era: a novel experience with the first full-field digital mammography system in Malaysia.
Ranganathan S; Faridah Y; Ng KH
Singapore Med J; 2007 Sep; 48(9):804-7. PubMed ID: 17728959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment - a population based study from the Netherlands.
Nederend J; Duijm LE; Louwman MW; Coebergh JW; Roumen RM; Lohle PN; Roukema JA; Rutten MJ; van Steenbergen LN; Ernst MF; Jansen FH; Plaisier ML; Hooijen MJ; Voogd AC
Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jan; 50(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 24275518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography.
Fischer U; Baum F; Obenauer S; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Vosshenrich R; Grabbe E
Eur Radiol; 2002 Nov; 12(11):2679-83. PubMed ID: 12386757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. Influence of using manual or automatic breast density information in a mass detection CAD system.
Oliver A; Lladó X; Freixenet J; Martí R; Pérez E; Pont J; Zwiggelaar R
Acad Radiol; 2010 Jul; 17(7):877-83. PubMed ID: 20540910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Screening outcome and surgical treatment during and after the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography in the south of The Netherlands.
Weber RJ; Nederend J; Voogd AC; Strobbe LJ; Duijm LE
Int J Cancer; 2015 Jul; 137(1):135-43. PubMed ID: 25418512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Detection of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography and computer-aided detection.
The JS; Schilling KJ; Hoffmeister JW; Friedmann E; McGinnis R; Holcomb RG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Feb; 192(2):337-40. PubMed ID: 19155392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Full-field digital mammographic interpretation with prior analog versus prior digitized analog mammography: time for interpretation.
Garg AS; Rapelyea JA; Rechtman LR; Torrente J; Bittner RB; Coffey CM; Brem RF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jun; 196(6):1436-8. PubMed ID: 21606310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study.
Vigeland E; Klaasen H; Klingen TA; Hofvind S; Skaane P
Eur Radiol; 2008 Jan; 18(1):183-91. PubMed ID: 17680246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.
Skaane P; Diekmann F; Balleyguier C; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Abdelnoor M; Niklason L
Eur Radiol; 2008 Jun; 18(6):1134-43. PubMed ID: 18301902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Mutual information-based template matching scheme for detection of breast masses: from mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis.
Mazurowski MA; Lo JY; Harrawood BP; Tourassi GD
J Biomed Inform; 2011 Oct; 44(5):815-23. PubMed ID: 21554985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications.
Kim HS; Han BK; Choo KS; Jeon YH; Kim JH; Choe YH
Korean J Radiol; 2005; 6(4):214-20. PubMed ID: 16374078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Impact on breast cancer diagnosis in a multidisciplinary unit after the incorporation of mammography digitalization and computer-aided detection systems.
Romero C; Varela C; Muñoz E; Almenar A; Pinto JM; Botella M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Dec; 197(6):1492-7. PubMed ID: 22109307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
