254 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28189505)
41. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography.
Saunders RS; Samei E; Baker J; Delong D; Soo MS; Walsh R; Pisano E; Kuzmiak CM; Pavic D
Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26. PubMed ID: 17070449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm.
Gur D; Bandos AI; Rockette HE; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Chough DM; Hakim CM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Mar; 196(3):737-41. PubMed ID: 21343521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. A Case for Wide-Angle Breast Tomosynthesis.
Samei E; Thompson J; Richard S; Bowsher J
Acad Radiol; 2015 Jul; 22(7):860-9. PubMed ID: 25920335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study.
Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Feb; 202(2):273-81. PubMed ID: 24450665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Synthesized Digital Mammography Imaging.
Freer PE; Winkler N
Radiol Clin North Am; 2017 May; 55(3):503-512. PubMed ID: 28411676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Classification of clusters of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Ho CP; Tromans C; Schnabel JA; Brady M
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2010; 2010():3166-9. PubMed ID: 21096808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. Detecting clustered microcalcifications in the female breast: secondary digitized images versus mammograms.
De Maeseneer M; Beeckman P; Osteaux M; Mattheus R; Hoste M; Bastaerts Y; Jong B
J Belge Radiol; 1992 Jun; 75(3):173-8. PubMed ID: 1400145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study.
Svahn T; Andersson I; Chakraborty D; Svensson S; Ikeda D; Förnvik D; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Zackrisson S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):113-7. PubMed ID: 20228048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Observer study for evaluating potential utility of a super-high-resolution LCD in the detection of clustered microcalcifications on digital mammograms.
Shiraishi J; Abe H; Ichikawa K; Schmidt RA; Doi K
J Digit Imaging; 2010 Apr; 23(2):161-9. PubMed ID: 19277785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Celis V; Geniets C; Provost V; Pauwels H; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):765-75. PubMed ID: 19378737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. The effect of system geometry and dose on the threshold detectable calcification diameter in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Hadjipanteli A; Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Looney PT; Wells K; Dance DR; Young KC
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Feb; 62(3):858-877. PubMed ID: 28072582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Automated detection of microcalcification clusters for digital breast tomosynthesis using projection data only: a preliminary study.
Reiser I; Nishikawa RM; Edwards AV; Kopans DB; Schmidt RA; Papaioannou J; Moore RH
Med Phys; 2008 Apr; 35(4):1486-93. PubMed ID: 18491543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. [Improvement of detectability of microcalcifications by magnification digital mammography].
Higashida Y; Hatemura M; Yoshida A; Takada T; Takahashi M
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Aug; 58(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 9778932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography.
Morel JC; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Peacock C; Evans DR; Rahim R; Goligher J; Michell MJ
Clin Radiol; 2014 Nov; 69(11):1112-6. PubMed ID: 25100302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. 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]
57. Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications.
Yakabe M; Sakai S; Yabuuchi H; Matsuo Y; Kamitani T; Setoguchi T; Cho M; Masuda M; Sasaki M
J Digit Imaging; 2010 Oct; 23(5):520-6. PubMed ID: 19415382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Added value of one-view breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader experience.
Thomassin-Naggara I; Perrot N; Dechoux S; Ribeiro C; Chopier J; de Bazelaire C
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Feb; 84(2):235-41. PubMed ID: 25467641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Potential usefulness of similar images in the differential diagnosis of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms.
Nakayama R; Abe H; Shiraishi J; Doi K
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):625-31. PubMed ID: 19789245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Is an ROC-type response truly always better than a binary response in observer performance studies?
Gur D; Bandos AI; Rockette HE; Zuley ML; Hakim CM; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Sumkin JH
Acad Radiol; 2010 May; 17(5):639-45. PubMed ID: 20236840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
