These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25086544)
21. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Durand MA; Haas BM; Yao X; Geisel JL; Raghu M; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Philpotts LE Radiology; 2015 Jan; 274(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 25188431 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study. Chan HP; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Jeffries DO; Klein KA; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1372-1379. PubMed ID: 28647388 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification. Petrillo A; Fusco R; Vallone P; Filice S; Granata V; Petrosino T; Rosaria Rubulotta M; Setola SV; Mattace Raso M; Maio F; Raiano C; Siani C; Di Bonito M; Botti G Breast J; 2020 May; 26(5):860-872. PubMed ID: 31886607 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening. Wahab RA; Lee SJ; Zhang B; Sobel L; Mahoney MC Eur J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 107():14-19. PubMed ID: 30292258 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Skaane P; Gullien R; Bjørndal H; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Jahr G; Jebsen IN; Krager M Acta Radiol; 2012 Jun; 53(5):524-9. PubMed ID: 22593120 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A mathematical model platform for optimizing a multiprojection breast imaging system. Chawla AS; Samei E; Saunders RS; Lo JY; Baker JA Med Phys; 2008 Apr; 35(4):1337-45. PubMed ID: 18491528 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging. Shafer CM; Samei E; Lo JY Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):1004-16. PubMed ID: 20384236 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Initial Clinical Experience with Stationary Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Lee YZ; Puett C; Inscoe CR; Jia B; Kim C; Walsh R; Yoon S; Kim SJ; Kuzmiak CM; Zeng D; Lu J; Zhou O Acad Radiol; 2019 Oct; 26(10):1363-1372. PubMed ID: 30660473 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Characterization of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of machine learning in projection views and reconstructed slices. Chan HP; Wu YT; Sahiner B; Wei J; Helvie MA; Zhang Y; Moore RH; Kopans DB; Hadjiiski L; Way T Med Phys; 2010 Jul; 37(7):3576-86. PubMed ID: 20831065 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Breast cancer detection using single-reading of breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) compared to double-reading of 2D-mammography: Evidence from a population-based trial. Houssami N; Bernardi D; Pellegrini M; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Tuttobene P; Luparia A; Macaskill P Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Apr; 47():94-99. PubMed ID: 28192742 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Cone beam breast CT with multiplanar and three dimensional visualization in differentiating breast masses compared with mammography. Zhao B; Zhang X; Cai W; Conover D; Ning R Eur J Radiol; 2015 Jan; 84(1):48-53. PubMed ID: 25439008 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Breast MRI, digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis: comparison of three methods for early detection of breast cancer. Roganovic D; Djilas D; Vujnovic S; Pavic D; Stojanov D Bosn J Basic Med Sci; 2015 Nov; 15(4):64-8. PubMed ID: 26614855 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. Spangler ML; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Abrams G; Ganott MA; Hakim C; Perrin R; Chough DM; Shah R; Gur D AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):320-4. PubMed ID: 21257882 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis as Replacement of Full-Field Digital Mammography Using an In Silico Imaging Trial. Badano A; Graff CG; Badal A; Sharma D; Zeng R; Samuelson FW; Glick SJ; Myers KJ JAMA Netw Open; 2018 Nov; 1(7):e185474. PubMed ID: 30646401 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound images. Sahiner B; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Roubidoux MA; Paramagul C; Bailey JE; Nees AV; Blane CE; Adler DD; Patterson SK; Klein KA; Pinsky RW; Helvie MA Acad Radiol; 2009 Jul; 16(7):810-8. PubMed ID: 19375953 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsies on a digital breast 3D-tomosynthesis system. Viala J; Gignier P; Perret B; Hovasse C; Hovasse D; Chancelier-Galan MD; Bornet G; Hamrouni A; Lasry JL; Convard JP Breast J; 2013; 19(1):4-9. PubMed ID: 23252555 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. Greenberg JS; Javitt MC; Katzen J; Michael S; Holland AE AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 24918774 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Lesion detectability in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using different targets and observers. Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Young KC; Wells K Phys Med Biol; 2018 May; 63(9):095014. PubMed ID: 29637906 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. Gur D; Abrams GS; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Perrin RL; Rathfon GY; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Bandos AI AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):586-91. PubMed ID: 19620460 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]