194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22772149)
21. A method to test the reproducibility and to improve performance of computer-aided detection schemes for digitized mammograms.
Zheng B; Gur D; Good WF; Hardesty LA
Med Phys; 2004 Nov; 31(11):2964-72. PubMed ID: 15587648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Computer-aided detection of breast masses: four-view strategy for screening mammography.
Wei J; Chan HP; Zhou C; Wu YT; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Roubidoux MA; Helvie MA
Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):1867-76. PubMed ID: 21626920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Computer-aided detection in mammography.
Astley SM; Gilbert FJ
Clin Radiol; 2004 May; 59(5):390-9. PubMed ID: 15081844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Improvement in radiologists' characterization of malignant and benign breast masses on serial mammograms with computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study.
Hadjiiski L; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Blane C; Paramagul C; Petrick N; Bailey J; Klein K; Foster M; Patterson S; Adler D; Nees A; Shen J
Radiology; 2004 Oct; 233(1):255-65. PubMed ID: 15317954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms.
Karssemeijer N; Otten JD; Verbeek AL; Groenewoud JH; de Koning HJ; Hendriks JH; Holland R
Radiology; 2003 Apr; 227(1):192-200. PubMed ID: 12616008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Computer-aided detection of breast masses depicted on full-field digital mammograms: a performance assessment.
Zheng B; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Lederman D; Wang X; Gur D
Br J Radiol; 2012 Jun; 85(1014):e153-61. PubMed ID: 21343322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer.
Brem RF; Hoffmeister JW; Rapelyea JA; Zisman G; Mohtashemi K; Jindal G; Disimio MP; Rogers SK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Feb; 184(2):439-44. PubMed ID: 15671360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Effect of computer-aided detection on mammographic performance: experimental study on readers with different levels of experience.
Hukkinen K; Vehmas T; Pamilo M; Kivisaari L
Acta Radiol; 2006 Apr; 47(3):257-63. PubMed ID: 16613306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Detection and classification performance levels of mammographic masses under different computer-aided detection cueing environments.
Zheng B; Swensson RG; Golla S; Hakim CM; Shah R; Wallace L; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2004 Apr; 11(4):398-406. PubMed ID: 15109012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Reduction of False-Positive Markings on Mammograms: a Retrospective Comparison Study Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based CAD.
Mayo RC; Kent D; Sen LC; Kapoor M; Leung JWT; Watanabe AT
J Digit Imaging; 2019 Aug; 32(4):618-624. PubMed ID: 30963339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
Buist DS; Anderson ML; Smith RA; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Monsees BS; Sickles EA; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Onega TL
Radiology; 2014 Nov; 273(2):351-64. PubMed ID: 24960110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Effect of integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population screening trial: A descriptive study.
Bernardi D; Li T; Pellegrini M; Macaskill P; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Houssami N
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 106():26-31. PubMed ID: 30150047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Computer-aided detection in digital mammography: false-positive marks and their reproducibility in negative mammograms.
Kim SJ; Moon WK; Seong MH; Cho N; Chang JM
Acta Radiol; 2009 Nov; 50(9):999-1004. PubMed ID: 19863409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: assessment.
Gur D; Stalder JS; Hardesty LA; Zheng B; Sumkin JH; Chough DM; Shindel BE; Rockette HE
Radiology; 2004 Nov; 233(2):418-23. PubMed ID: 15358846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support.
Samulski M; Hupse R; Boetes C; Mus RD; den Heeten GJ; Karssemeijer N
Eur Radiol; 2010 Oct; 20(10):2323-30. PubMed ID: 20532890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Improving the performance of computer-aided detection of subtle breast masses using an adaptive cueing method.
Wang X; Li L; Xu W; Liu W; Lederman D; Zheng B
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Jan; 57(2):561-75. PubMed ID: 22218075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Computer-aided diagnosis with temporal analysis to improve radiologists' interpretation of mammographic mass lesions.
Timp S; Varela C; Karssemeijer N
IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2010 May; 14(3):803-8. PubMed ID: 20403792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
