211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25995309)
1. Utility of adaptive control processing for the interpretation of digital mammograms.
Jinnouchi M; Yabuuchi H; Kubo M; Tokunaga E; Yamamoto H; Honda H
Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1297-1303. PubMed ID: 25995309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Kim WH; Chang JM; Koo HR; Seo M; Bae MS; Lee J; Moon WK
Acta Radiol; 2017 Feb; 58(2):148-155. PubMed ID: 27178032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Detection of breast cancer by soft-copy reading of digital mammograms: comparison between a routine image-processing parameter and high-contrast parameters.
Kamitani T; Yabuuchi H; Soeda H; Matsuo Y; Okafuji T; Sakai S; Setoguchi T; Hatakenaka M; Ishii N; Honda H
Acta Radiol; 2010 Feb; 51(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 19922328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study.
Skaane P; Gullien R; Eben EB; Sandhaug M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Stoeblen F
Acta Radiol; 2015 Apr; 56(4):404-12. PubMed ID: 24682405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. An evaluation of contrast enhancement techniques for mammographic breast masses.
Singh S; Bovis K
IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2005 Mar; 9(1):109-19. PubMed ID: 15787013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Breast peripheral area correction in digital mammograms.
Tortajada M; Oliver A; Martí R; Ganau S; Tortajada L; Sentís M; Freixenet J; Zwiggelaar R
Comput Biol Med; 2014 Jul; 50():32-40. PubMed ID: 24845018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A study on mastectomy samples to evaluate breast imaging quality and potential clinical relevance of differential phase contrast mammography.
Hauser N; Wang Z; Kubik-Huch RA; Trippel M; Singer G; Hohl MK; Roessl E; Köhler T; van Stevendaal U; Wieberneit N; Stampanoni M
Invest Radiol; 2014 Mar; 49(3):131-7. PubMed ID: 24141742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software.
Paquerault S; Samuelson FW; Petrick N; Myers KJ; Smith RC
Acad Radiol; 2009 Sep; 16(9):1095-107. PubMed ID: 19523855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories.
Bent CK; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Sayre JW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 May; 194(5):1378-83. PubMed ID: 20410428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Classification of fatty and dense breast parenchyma: comparison of automatic volumetric density measurement and radiologists' classification and their inter-observer variation.
Østerås BH; Martinsen AC; Brandal SH; Chaudhry KN; Eben E; Haakenaasen U; Falk RS; Skaane P
Acta Radiol; 2016 Oct; 57(10):1178-85. PubMed ID: 26792823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
