126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35536391)
21. Computer-aided detection in digital mammography: comparison of craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique, and mediolateral views.
Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Cha JH; Kim SM; Im JG
Radiology; 2006 Dec; 241(3):695-701. PubMed ID: 17114620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Is there any added value to substitute the 2D digital MLO projection for a MLO tomosynthesis projection and its synthetic view when a 2D standard digital mammography is used in a one-stop-shop immediate reading mammography screening?
Mesurolle B; El Khoury M; Travade A; Bagard C; Pétrou A; Monghal C
Eur Radiol; 2021 Dec; 31(12):9529-9539. PubMed ID: 34047846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Reduction of discomfort during mammography utilizing a radiolucent cushioning pad.
Markle L; Roux S; Sayre JW
Breast J; 2004; 10(4):345-9. PubMed ID: 15239794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Clinical validation of a pressure-standardized compression mammography system.
den Boer D; Dam-Vervloet LAJ; Boomsma MF; de Boer E; van Dalen JA; Poot L
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Aug; 105():251-254. PubMed ID: 30017290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Breast biphasic compression versus standard monophasic compression in X-ray mammography.
Sardanelli F; Zandrino F; Imperiale A; Bonaldo E; Quartini MG; Cogorno N
Radiology; 2000 Nov; 217(2):576-80. PubMed ID: 11058663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose.
Helvie MA; Chan HP; Adler DD; Boyd PG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Dec; 163(6):1371-4. PubMed ID: 7992731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Compression forces used in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Waade GG; Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Hogg P; Hofvind S
Br J Radiol; 2017 Mar; 90(1071):20160770. PubMed ID: 28102696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Patient-Assisted Compression in Screening Mammography: Patient Experience and Image Quality.
Dontchos BN; Edmonds CE; Mercaldo SF; Miles RC; Chu KF; Lehman CD
J Breast Imaging; 2019 Sep; 1(3):192-198. PubMed ID: 38424767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Compression force variability in mammography in Ghana - A baseline study.
Dzidzornu E; Angmorterh SK; Ofori-Manteaw BB; Aboagye S; Ofori EK; Owusu-Agyei S; Hogg P
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Feb; 27(1):150-155. PubMed ID: 32741566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality.
Broeders MJ; Ten Voorde M; Veldkamp WJ; van Engen RE; van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; 't Jong-Gunneman MN; de Win J; Greve KD; Paap E; den Heeten GJ
Eur Radiol; 2015 Mar; 25(3):821-9. PubMed ID: 25504427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study.
Bluekens AM; Holland R; Karssemeijer N; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Radiology; 2012 Dec; 265(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 23033499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Assessment of a Four-View Mammographic Image Feature Based Fusion Model to Predict Near-Term Breast Cancer Risk.
Tan M; Pu J; Cheng S; Liu H; Zheng B
Ann Biomed Eng; 2015 Oct; 43(10):2416-28. PubMed ID: 25851469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough?
Poulos A; McLean D; Rickard M; Heard R
Australas Radiol; 2003 Jun; 47(2):121-6. PubMed ID: 12780439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Replacing single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital mammography (DM) with synthesized mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images: Comparison of the diagnostic performance and radiation dose with two-view DM with or without MLO-DBT.
Kang HJ; Chang JM; Lee J; Song SE; Shin SU; Kim WH; Bae MS; Moon WK
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Nov; 85(11):2042-2048. PubMed ID: 27776658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. INSTITUTIONAL BREAST DOSES IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
Lekatou A; Metaxas V; Messaris G; Antzele P; Tzavellas G; Panayiotakis G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(2):239-251. PubMed ID: 30753684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Appropriate screening mammography method for patients with breast implants.
Park J; Ko EY; Han BK; Ko ES; Choi JS; Kim H
Sci Rep; 2023 Feb; 13(1):1811. PubMed ID: 36725965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Automated mammographic breast density estimation using a fully convolutional network.
Lee J; Nishikawa RM
Med Phys; 2018 Mar; 45(3):1178-1190. PubMed ID: 29363774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Are All Views with and without Displacement Maneuver Necessary in Augmentation Mammography? Putting Numbers Into Perspective.
Couto LS; Freitas-Junior R; Corrêa RS; Lauar MV; Bauab SP; Urban LABD; Cruvinel-Filho JLO; Soares LR; Savaris RF
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2022 Jan; 23(1):233-239. PubMed ID: 35092393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Does the use of self-compression in mammography affect compression force, breast thickness, and mean glandular dose?
Alukic E; Bravhar P; Mekis N
Eur J Radiol; 2021 Jun; 139():109694. PubMed ID: 33839429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
