115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33819803)
1. Validation of a candidate instrument to assess image quality in digital mammography using ROC analysis.
Boita J; van Engen RE; Mackenzie A; Tingberg A; Bosmans H; Bolejko A; Zackrisson S; Wallis MG; Ikeda DM; van Ongeval C; Pijnappel R; Broeders M; Sechopoulos I
Eur J Radiol; 2021 Jun; 139():109686. PubMed ID: 33819803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of radiologists' experience on breast cancer detection and localization using digital breast tomosynthesis.
Alakhras MM; Brennan PC; Rickard M; Bourne R; Mello-Thoms C
Eur Radiol; 2015 Feb; 25(2):402-9. PubMed ID: 25192796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. How does image quality affect radiologists' perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography?
Boita J; van Engen RE; Mackenzie A; Tingberg A; Bosmans H; Bolejko A; Zackrisson S; Wallis MG; Ikeda DM; Van Ongeval C; Pijnappel R; Broeders M; Sechopoulos I;
Eur Radiol; 2021 Jul; 31(7):5335-5343. PubMed ID: 33475774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Jacobs J; Oyen R; Bosmans H
Br J Radiol; 2012 Dec; 85(1020):e1233-41. PubMed ID: 22844032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Development and content validity evaluation of a candidate instrument to assess image quality in digital mammography: A mixed-method study.
Boita J; Bolejko A; Zackrisson S; Wallis MG; Ikeda DM; Van Ongeval C; van Engen RE; Mackenzie A; Tingberg A; Bosmans H; Pijnappel R; Sechopoulos I; Broeders M
Eur J Radiol; 2021 Jan; 134():109464. PubMed ID: 33307458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of breast cancer detection and depiction between planar and rotating synthetic mammography generated from breast tomosynthesis.
Rodriguez-Ruiz A; Lardenoije S; Wanders AJT; Sechopoulos I; Mann RM
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Nov; 108():78-83. PubMed ID: 30396675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical performance metrics of 3D stereoscopic digital mammography compared with 2D digital mammography: observer study.
Daidoji A; Aoki T; Murakami S; Miyata M; Fujii M; Katsuki T; Inoue Y; Tashima Y; Nagata Y; Hirata K; Tanaka F; Korogi Y
Br J Radiol; 2018 Jun; 91(1086):20170908. PubMed ID: 29319344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?
Mall S; Noakes J; Kossoff M; Lee W; McKessar M; Goy A; Duncombe J; Roberts M; Giuffre B; Miller A; Bhola N; Kapoor C; Shearman C; DaCosta G; Choi S; Sterba J; Kay M; Bruderlin K; Winarta N; Donohue K; Macdonell-Scott B; Klijnsma F; Suzuki K; Brennan P; Mello-Thoms C
Eur Radiol; 2018 Dec; 28(12):5182-5194. PubMed ID: 29846804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Visual-search observers for assessing tomographic x-ray image quality.
Gifford HC; Liang Z; Das M
Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1563-75. PubMed ID: 26936739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Using breast radiographers' reports as a second opinion for radiologists' readings of microcalcifications in digital mammography.
Tanaka R; Takamori M; Uchiyama Y; Nishikawa RM; Shiraishi J
Br J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 88(1047):20140565. PubMed ID: 25536443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography.
Aminololama-Shakeri S; Abbey CK; Gazi P; Prionas ND; Nosratieh A; Li CS; Boone JM; Lindfors KK
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Jan; 85(1):297-303. PubMed ID: 26520874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study.
Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Zuiani C; Martincich L; Londero V; Caramia E; Clauser P; Campanino PP; Regini E; Luparia A; Castellano I; Bergamasco L; Sapino A; Fonio P; Bazzocchi M; Gandini G
Clin Radiol; 2016 Sep; 71(9):889-95. PubMed ID: 27210245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Deep learning denoising of digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study of the effect on detection of microcalcifications in breast phantom images.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Gao M; Hadjiiski L; Zhou C; Garver K; Klein KA; McLaughlin C; Oudsema R; Rahman WT; Roubidoux MA
Med Phys; 2023 Oct; 50(10):6177-6189. PubMed ID: 37145996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Performance of Photon-Counting Breast Computed Tomography, Digital Mammography, and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Evaluating Breast Specimens.
Rößler AC; Kalender W; Kolditz D; Steiding C; Ruth V; Preuss C; Peter SC; Brehm B; Hammon M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E
Acad Radiol; 2017 Feb; 24(2):184-190. PubMed ID: 27888024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
