285 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33715511)
1. Assessment of breast positioning criteria in mammographic screening: Agreement between artificial intelligence software and radiographers.
Waade GG; Danielsen AS; Holen ÅS; Larsen M; Hanestad B; Hopland NM; Kalcheva V; Hofvind S
J Med Screen; 2021 Dec; 28(4):448-455. PubMed ID: 33715511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The impact of subjective image quality evaluation in mammography.
Alukić E; Homar K; Pavić M; Žibert J; Mekiš N
Radiography (Lond); 2023 May; 29(3):526-532. PubMed ID: 36913787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of breast density assessment between human eye and automated software on digital and synthetic mammography: Impact on breast cancer risk.
Le Boulc'h M; Bekhouche A; Kermarrec E; Milon A; Abdel Wahab C; Zilberman S; Chabbert-Buffet N; Thomassin-Naggara I
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2020 Dec; 101(12):811-819. PubMed ID: 32819886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial.
Hofvind S; Holen ÅS; Aase HS; Houssami N; Sebuødegård S; Moger TA; Haldorsen IS; Akslen LA
Lancet Oncol; 2019 Jun; 20(6):795-805. PubMed ID: 31078459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Impact of artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening with mammography.
Dang LA; Chazard E; Poncelet E; Serb T; Rusu A; Pauwels X; Parsy C; Poclet T; Cauliez H; Engelaere C; Ramette G; Brienne C; Dujardin S; Laurent N
Breast Cancer; 2022 Nov; 29(6):967-977. PubMed ID: 35763243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Application of artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis on synthetic mammograms from breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammograms.
Lee SE; Han K; Kim EK
Eur Radiol; 2021 Sep; 31(9):6929-6937. PubMed ID: 33710372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. AI-based Strategies to Reduce Workload in Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography and Tomosynthesis: A Retrospective Evaluation.
Raya-Povedano JL; Romero-Martín S; Elías-Cabot E; Gubern-Mérida A; Rodríguez-Ruiz A; Álvarez-Benito M
Radiology; 2021 Jul; 300(1):57-65. PubMed ID: 33944627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Artificial intelligence assistance for women who had spot compression view: reducing recall rates for digital mammography.
Lee SE; Kim GR; Yoon JH; Han K; Son WJ; Shin HJ; Moon HJ
Acta Radiol; 2023 May; 64(5):1808-1815. PubMed ID: 36426409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison between software volumetric breast density estimates in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography images in a large public screening cohort.
Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Fieselmann A; Lång K; Sartor H
Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):330-336. PubMed ID: 29943180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Artificial intelligence in BreastScreen Norway: a retrospective analysis of a cancer-enriched sample including 1254 breast cancer cases.
Koch HW; Larsen M; Bartsch H; Kurz KD; Hofvind S
Eur Radiol; 2023 May; 33(5):3735-3743. PubMed ID: 36917260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Using automated software evaluation to improve the performance of breast radiographers in tomosynthesis screening.
Gennaro G; Povolo L; Del Genio S; Ciampani L; Fasoli C; Carlevaris P; Petrioli M; Masiero T; Maggetto F; Caumo F
Eur Radiol; 2023 Nov; ():. PubMed ID: 38019313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Impact of Artificial Intelligence Decision Support Using Deep Learning on Breast Cancer Screening Interpretation with Single-View Wide-Angle Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Pinto MC; Rodriguez-Ruiz A; Pedersen K; Hofvind S; Wicklein J; Kappler S; Mann RM; Sechopoulos I
Radiology; 2021 Sep; 300(3):529-536. PubMed ID: 34227882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Mammographic positioning quality of newly trained versus experienced radiographers in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.
van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; den Heeten GJ; Timmers J; Broeders MJ
Eur Radiol; 2015 Nov; 25(11):3322-7. PubMed ID: 25987428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mammography in females with an implanted medical device: impact on image quality, pain and anxiety.
Paap E; Witjes M; van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; Pijnappel RM; Maas AH; Broeders MJ
Br J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 89(1066):20160142. PubMed ID: 27452263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A self-directed learning intervention for radiographers rating mammographic breast density.
Ekpo EU; Hogg P; Wasike E; McEntee MF
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):337-342. PubMed ID: 28965898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Automatic and standardized quality assurance of digital mammography and tomosynthesis with deep convolutional neural networks.
Hejduk P; Sexauer R; Ruppert C; Borkowski K; Unkelbach J; Schmidt N
Insights Imaging; 2023 May; 14(1):90. PubMed ID: 37199794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mammography image quality and evidence based practice: Analysis of the demonstration of the inframammary angle in the digital setting.
Spuur K; Webb J; Poulos A; Nielsen S; Robinson W
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Mar; 100():76-84. PubMed ID: 29496083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Artificial intelligence in mammographic phenotyping of breast cancer risk: a narrative review.
Gastounioti A; Desai S; Ahluwalia VS; Conant EF; Kontos D
Breast Cancer Res; 2022 Feb; 24(1):14. PubMed ID: 35184757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Possible strategies for use of artificial intelligence in screen-reading of mammograms, based on retrospective data from 122,969 screening examinations.
Larsen M; Aglen CF; Hoff SR; Lund-Hanssen H; Hofvind S
Eur Radiol; 2022 Dec; 32(12):8238-8246. PubMed ID: 35704111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Consistency of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Diagnostic Support Software in Short-term Digital Mammography Reimaging After Core Needle Biopsy.
Youk JH; Han K; Lee SE; Kim EK
J Digit Imaging; 2023 Oct; 36(5):1965-1973. PubMed ID: 37326891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
