These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. The more eyes, the better to see? From double to quadruple reading of screening mammograms. Elmore JG; Brenner RJ J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1141-3. PubMed ID: 17652275 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. A multisite telemammography system for remote management of screening mammography: an assessment of technical, operational, and clinical issues. Leader JK; Hakim CM; Ganott MA; Chough DM; Wallace LP; Clearfield RJ; Perrin RL; Drescher JM; Maitz GS; Sumkin JH; Gur D J Digit Imaging; 2006 Sep; 19(3):216-25. PubMed ID: 16710798 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Computer vision and artificial intelligence in mammography. Vyborny CJ; Giger ML AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Mar; 162(3):699-708. PubMed ID: 8109525 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Artificial neural networks in mammography: application to decision making in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Wu Y; Giger ML; Doi K; Vyborny CJ; Schmidt RA; Metz CE Radiology; 1993 Apr; 187(1):81-7. PubMed ID: 8451441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. Elmore JG; Wells CK; Lee CH; Howard DH; Feinstein AR N Engl J Med; 1994 Dec; 331(22):1493-9. PubMed ID: 7969300 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical evaluation of assistant diagnostic system for mammograms using the auto-analyzing method. Endo T; Kido C; Horita K; Iguchi H Radiat Med; 1992; 10(2):50-4. PubMed ID: 1626058 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast imaging: a comparison of digital luminescence radiographs displayed on TV-monitor and film-screen mammography. Jarlman O; Borg A; Braw M; Kehler M; Lyttkens K; Samuelsson L Cancer Detect Prev; 1994; 18(5):375-81. PubMed ID: 7812984 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Detection of clustered microcalcifications in small field digital mammography. Arodź T; Kurdziel M; Popiela TJ; Sevre EO; Yuen DA Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2006 Jan; 81(1):56-65. PubMed ID: 16310282 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. Beam CA; Layde PM; Sullivan DC Arch Intern Med; 1996 Jan; 156(2):209-13. PubMed ID: 8546556 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Computers aid diagnosis of breast abnormalities. Giger ML; Vyborny CJ Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1993 Jun; 15(6):98-102, 113. PubMed ID: 10148792 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Computer aids to mammographic diagnosis. Gale AG; Roebuck EJ; Riley P; Worthington BS Br J Radiol; 1987 Sep; 60(717):887-91. PubMed ID: 3311272 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography. Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Computer-aided methods help cancer diagnoses. Giger ML; Wolverton DE Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1996 Nov; Suppl Digital X():D17-20. PubMed ID: 10181866 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Comment on "Quantitative classification of breast tumors in digitized mammograms" [Med. Phys. 23, 1337-1345 (1996)]. Nishikawa RM Med Phys; 1997 Feb; 24(2):313, 315. PubMed ID: 9048373 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Computer-aided diagnosis with temporal analysis to improve radiologists' interpretation of mammographic mass lesions. Timp S; Varela C; Karssemeijer N IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2010 May; 14(3):803-8. PubMed ID: 20403792 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting. Uematsu T; Kasami M Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]