167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25247960)
1. Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography.
Cole EB; Zhang Z; Marques HS; Edward Hendrick R; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Oct; 203(4):909-16. PubMed ID: 25247960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
Cole EB; Zhang Z; Marques HS; Nishikawa RM; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Padungchaichote W; Kuzmiak C; Chayakulkheeree J; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Baum J; Gatsonis C; Pisano E
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Sep; 199(3):W392-401. PubMed ID: 22915432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.
Lehman CD; Wellman RD; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Miglioretti DL;
JAMA Intern Med; 2015 Nov; 175(11):1828-37. PubMed ID: 26414882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.
Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Baum JK; Acharyya S; Cormack JB; Hanna LA; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Jong RA; Rebner M; Tosteson AN; Gatsonis CA;
Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):376-83. PubMed ID: 18227537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study.
Hendrick RE; Cole EB; Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Marques H; Cohen MA; Jong RA; Mawdsley GE; Kanal KM; D'Orsi CJ; Rebner M; Gatsonis C
Radiology; 2008 Apr; 247(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 18372463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.
Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):104-13. PubMed ID: 23169790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.
Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Cole EB; Marques HS; Yaffe MJ; Blevins M; Conant EF; Hendrick RE; Baum JK; Fajardo LL; Jong RA; Koomen MA; Kuzmiak CM; Lee Y; Pavic D; Yoon SC; Padungchaichote W; Gatsonis C
Radiology; 2009 Aug; 252(2):348-57. PubMed ID: 19703878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of computer-aided detection of lesions in mammograms obtained with a digital phase-contrast mammography system.
Tanaka T; Nitta N; Ohta S; Kobayashi T; Kano A; Tsuchiya K; Murakami Y; Kitahara S; Wakamiya M; Furukawa A; Takahashi M; Murata K
Eur Radiol; 2009 Dec; 19(12):2886-95. PubMed ID: 19585121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Concurrent Computer-Aided Detection Improves Reading Time of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Maintains Interpretation Performance in a Multireader Multicase Study.
Benedikt RA; Boatsman JE; Swann CA; Kirkpatrick AD; Toledano AY
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Mar; 210(3):685-694. PubMed ID: 29064756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Computerized detection of breast tissue asymmetry depicted on bilateral mammograms: a preliminary study of breast risk stratification.
Wang X; Lederman D; Tan J; Wang XH; Zheng B
Acad Radiol; 2010 Oct; 17(10):1234-41. PubMed ID: 20619697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography.
Ko JM; Nicholas MJ; Mendel JB; Slanetz PJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):1483-91. PubMed ID: 17114541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.
Théberge I; Chang SL; Vandal N; Daigle JM; Guertin MH; Pelletier E; Brisson J
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Mar; 106(3):djt461. PubMed ID: 24598715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
