90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23477828)
1. Quantitative measures confirm the inverse relationship between lesion spiculation and detection of breast masses.
Rawashdeh MA; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Borecky N; Brennan PC
Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):576-80. PubMed ID: 23477828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns.
Al Mousa DS; Brennan PC; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Tan J; Mello-Thoms C
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1386-93. PubMed ID: 25172414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Computer-aided detection in digital mammography: comparison of craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique, and mediolateral views.
Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Cha JH; Kim SM; Im JG
Radiology; 2006 Dec; 241(3):695-701. PubMed ID: 17114620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast image pre-processing for mammographic tissue segmentation.
He W; Hogg P; Juette A; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
Comput Biol Med; 2015 Dec; 67():61-73. PubMed ID: 26498046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Investigation of optimal use of computer-aided detection systems: the role of the "machine" in decision making process.
Paquerault S; Hardy PT; Wersto N; Chen J; Smith RC
Acad Radiol; 2010 Sep; 17(9):1112-21. PubMed ID: 20605489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A concentric morphology model for the detection of masses in mammography.
Eltonsy NH; Tourassi GD; Elmaghraby AS
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2007 Jun; 26(6):880-9. PubMed ID: 17679338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Determination of similarity measures for pairs of mass lesions on mammograms by use of BI-RADS lesion descriptors and image features.
Muramatsu C; Li Q; Schmidt RA; Shiraishi J; Doi K
Acad Radiol; 2009 Apr; 16(4):443-9. PubMed ID: 19268856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study.
Wallis MG; Moa E; Zanca F; Leifland K; Danielsson M
Radiology; 2012 Mar; 262(3):788-96. PubMed ID: 22274840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The performance of computer-aided detection when analyzing prior mammograms of newly detected breast cancers with special focus on the time interval from initial imaging to detection.
Malich A; Schmidt S; Fischer DR; Facius M; Kaiser WA
Eur J Radiol; 2009 Mar; 69(3):574-8. PubMed ID: 18337045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: the effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures.
Keller BM; Nathan DL; Gavenonis SC; Chen J; Conant EF; Kontos D
Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):560-8. PubMed ID: 23465381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Investigation of psychophysical measure for evaluation of similar images for mammographic masses: preliminary results.
Muramatsu C; Li Q; Suzuki K; Schmidt RA; Shiraishi J; Newstead GM; Doi K
Med Phys; 2005 Jul; 32(7):2295-304. PubMed ID: 16121585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
