131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36913787)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full field digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation.
Keller BM; Nathan DL; Wang Y; Zheng Y; Gee JC; Conant EF; Kontos D
Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):4903-17. PubMed ID: 22894417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Standardised or individualised X-ray tube angle for mediolateral oblique projection in digital mammography?
Moshina N; Bjørnson EW; Holen ÅS; Larsen M; Hansestad B; Tøsdal L; Hofvind S
Radiography (Lond); 2022 Aug; 28(3):772-778. PubMed ID: 35387753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Mammography equipment design: impact on radiographers' practice.
Costa S; Oliveira E; Reis C; Viegas S; Serranheira F
Insights Imaging; 2014 Dec; 5(6):723-30. PubMed ID: 25272950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A review of mammographic image quality in Papua New Guinea.
Pape R; Spuur KM; Wilkinson JM; Zuhukepe A
J Med Radiat Sci; 2022 Mar; 69(1):24-29. PubMed ID: 34418330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A robust method for segmenting pectoral muscle in mediolateral oblique (MLO) mammograms.
Yin K; Yan S; Song C; Zheng B
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2019 Feb; 14(2):237-248. PubMed ID: 30288698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Consensus about image quality assessment criteria of breast implants mammography using Delphi method with radiographers and radiologists.
Sá Dos Reis C; Gremion I; Richli Meystre N
Insights Imaging; 2020 Apr; 11(1):56. PubMed ID: 32246276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Mammography with and without radiolucent positioning sheets: Comparison of projected breast area, pain experience, radiation dose and technical image quality.
Timmers J; Voorde MT; Engen RE; Landsveld-Verhoeven Cv; Pijnappel R; Greve KD; Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Oct; 84(10):1903-9. PubMed ID: 26272030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box.
Bassett LW; Hirbawi IA; DeBruhl N; Hayes MK
Radiology; 1993 Sep; 188(3):803-6. PubMed ID: 8351351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A complete software application for automatic registration of x-ray mammography and magnetic resonance images.
Solves-Llorens JA; Rupérez MJ; Monserrat C; Feliu E; García M; Lloret M
Med Phys; 2014 Aug; 41(8):081903. PubMed ID: 25086534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A Reliability Comparison of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Mammography: Breast Density Assessment Referring to the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Atlas.
Ma Y; Cao Y; Liu A; Yin L; Han P; Li H; Zhang X; Ye Z
Acad Radiol; 2019 Jun; 26(6):752-759. PubMed ID: 30220584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Inter- and intra-observer variability of qualitative visual breast-composition assessment in mammography among Japanese physicians: a first multi-institutional observer performance study in Japan.
Koyama Y; Nakashima K; Orihara S; Tsunoda H; Kimura F; Uenaka N; Ban K; Michishita Y; Kanemaki Y; Kurihara A; Tawaraya K; Taguri M; Ishikawa T; Uematsu T
Breast Cancer; 2024 Apr; ():. PubMed ID: 38619787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Persistent inter-observer variability of breast density assessment using BI-RADS® 5th edition guidelines.
Portnow LH; Georgian-Smith D; Haider I; Barrios M; Bay CP; Nelson KP; Raza S
Clin Imaging; 2022 Mar; 83():21-27. PubMed ID: 34952487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
