132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36913787)
21. A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening.
Wahab RA; Lee SJ; Zhang B; Sobel L; Mahoney MC
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 107():14-19. PubMed ID: 30292258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Comparison of the validity and reliability of two image classification systems for the assessment of mammogram quality.
Moreira C; Svoboda K; Poulos A; Taylor R; Page A; Rickard M
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):38-42. PubMed ID: 15814018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Michielsen K; Cockmartin L; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 43(9):5104. PubMed ID: 27587041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Dose management software implementation in mammography.
Samara ET; Tsapaki V; Sramek D
Phys Med; 2019 Dec; 68():88-95. PubMed ID: 31765886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Design and clinical validation of a software program for automated measurement of mammographic breast density.
Araújo ALC; Soares HB; Carvalho DF; Mendonça RM; Oliveira AG
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2020 Mar; 20(1):45. PubMed ID: 32122371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Assessment of mammography quality in Istanbul.
Gürdemir B; Arıbal E
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2012; 18(5):468-72. PubMed ID: 22801869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Breast percent density: estimation on digital mammograms and central tomosynthesis projections.
Bakic PR; Carton AK; Kontos D; Zhang C; Troxel AB; Maidment AD
Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):40-9. PubMed ID: 19420321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. To keep or reject, that is the question - A survey on radiologists and radiographers' assessments of plain radiography images.
Kjelle E; Schanche AK; Hafskjold L
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Feb; 27(1):115-119. PubMed ID: 32682730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.
Sweeney RI; Lewis SJ; Hogg P; McEntee MF
Br J Radiol; 2018 Feb; 91(1082):20170611. PubMed ID: 29125335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Clinical image quality in daily practice of breast cancer mammography screening.
Guertin MH; Théberge I; Dufresne MP; Zomahoun HT; Major D; Tremblay R; Ricard C; Shumak R; Wadden N; Pelletier E; Brisson J
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2014 Aug; 65(3):199-206. PubMed ID: 24947189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Automated pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms: Comparison of deep neural network to conventional computer vision.
Ma X; Wei J; Zhou C; Helvie MA; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Lu Y
Med Phys; 2019 May; 46(5):2103-2114. PubMed ID: 30771257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Cancer Conspicuity on Low-energy Images of Contrast-enhanced Mammography Compared With 2D Mammography.
Konstantopoulos C; Mehta TS; Brook A; Dialani V; Mehta R; Fein-Zachary V; Phillips J
J Breast Imaging; 2022 Jan; 4(1):31-38. PubMed ID: 38422415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Geometry-Based Pectoral Muscle Segmentation From MLO Mammogram Views.
Taghanaki SA; Liu Y; Miles B; Hamarneh G
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2017 Nov; 64(11):2662-2671. PubMed ID: 28129144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [Diagnostic image quality of mammograms in german outpatient medical care].
Pfandzelter R; Wülfing U; Boedeker B; Heywang-Köbrunner S
Rofo; 2010 Nov; 182(11):993-1000. PubMed ID: 20652850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Embryologist agreement when assessing blastocyst implantation probability: is data-driven prediction the solution to embryo assessment subjectivity?
Fordham DE; Rosentraub D; Polsky AL; Aviram T; Wolf Y; Perl O; Devir A; Rosentraub S; Silver DH; Gold Zamir Y; Bronstein AM; Lara Lara M; Ben Nagi J; Alvarez A; Munné S
Hum Reprod; 2022 Sep; 37(10):2275-2290. PubMed ID: 35944167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Effect of image quality and motivation of radiographer teams in mammography after dedicated training and the use of an evaluation tool like PGMI.
Santner T; Santner W; Gutzeit A
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Nov; 27(4):1124-1129. PubMed ID: 34120844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration using offline analysis of the transvaginal ultrasound 'sliding sign' technique: inter- and intra-observer reproducibility.
Reid S; Lu C; Casikar I; Mein B; Magotti R; Ludlow J; Benzie R; Condous G
Hum Reprod; 2013 May; 28(5):1237-46. PubMed ID: 23482338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluation of an improved algorithm for producing realistic 3D breast software phantoms: application for mammography.
Bliznakova K; Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Pallikarakis N
Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):5604-17. PubMed ID: 21158272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
