149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8193893)
21. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Vyborny CJ; MacMahon H; Metz CE; Doi K; Sickles EA
Invest Radiol; 1987 Jul; 22(7):581-9. PubMed ID: 3623862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. New CR system with pixel size of 50 microm for digital mammography: physical imaging properties and detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Ideguchi T; Higashida Y; Kawaji Y; Sasaki M; Zaizen M; Shibayama R; Nakamura Y; Koyanagi K; Ikeda H; Ohki M; Toyofuku F; Muranaka T
Radiat Med; 2004; 22(4):218-24. PubMed ID: 15468941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Efficacy of storage phosphor-based digital mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer--comparison with film-screen mammography].
Kitahama H
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1991 May; 51(5):547-60. PubMed ID: 1651472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A comparison of digital luminescence mammography and conventional film - screen system: preliminary results of clinical evaluation.
Perlet C; Becker C; Sittek H; Pistitsch C; Jäger L; Kessler M; Reiser M
Eur J Med Res; 1998 Mar; 3(3):165-71. PubMed ID: 9502757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography.
Yip WM; Pang SY; Yim WS; Kwok CS
Br J Radiol; 2001 Jul; 74(883):621-8. PubMed ID: 11509398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Adler DD; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Blane CE; Joynt LK; Wilson TE; Hadjiiski LM; Goodsitt MM
Acad Radiol; 2001 Jun; 8(6):454-66. PubMed ID: 11394537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Film-screen versus digitized mammography: assessment of clinical equivalence.
Powell KA; Obuchowski NA; Chilcote WA; Barry MM; Ganobcik SN; Cardenosa G
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Oct; 173(4):889-94. PubMed ID: 10511142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. A comparison of digitized storage phosphors and conventional mammography in the detection of malignant microcalcifications.
Oestmann JW; Kopans D; Hall DA; McCarthy KA; Rubens JR; Greene R
Invest Radiol; 1988 Oct; 23(10):725-8. PubMed ID: 3192395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms.
Undrill PE; O'Kane AD; Gilbert FJ
Clin Radiol; 2000 Oct; 55(10):782-90. PubMed ID: 11052880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial.
Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H; Van Steen A; Joossens K; Celis V; Van Goethem M; Verslegers I; Nijs K; Rogge F; Marchal G
Eur Radiol; 2006 Jun; 16(6):1360-6. PubMed ID: 16518656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Diagnostic quality of mammograms obtained with a new low-radiation-dose dual-screen and dual-emulsion film combination.
Wojtasek DA; Teixidor HS; Govoni AF; Gareen IF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Feb; 154(2):265-70. PubMed ID: 2105011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. [Comparing the visualization of microcalcifications with direct magnification in digital full-field mammography vs. film-screen mammography].
Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Bick U; Rogalla P; Blohmer JU; Winzer KJ; Hamm B
Rofo; 2002 Mar; 174(3):297-300. PubMed ID: 11885006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Detecting clustered microcalcifications in the female breast: secondary digitized images versus mammograms.
De Maeseneer M; Beeckman P; Osteaux M; Mattheus R; Hoste M; Bastaerts Y; Jong B
J Belge Radiol; 1992 Jun; 75(3):173-8. PubMed ID: 1400145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. A quantitative method for evaluating the detectability of lesions in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):214-8. PubMed ID: 18319282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Evaluation of a dual-screen, dual-emulsion mammography system.
Jackson VP; Harrill CD; White SJ; Gillespie KR; Mail JT; Katz BP
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Mar; 152(3):483-6. PubMed ID: 2783800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Detection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study.
Good WF; Sumkin JH; Ganott M; Hardesty L; Holbert B; Johns CM; Klym AH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Dec; 175(6):1573-6. PubMed ID: 11090378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [Film-screen mammography versus digital storage plate mammography: hard copy and monitor display of microcalcifications and focal findings--a retrospective clinical and histologic analysis].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Aichinger U; Tartsch M; Kuchar I; Bödicker A; Evertsz C; Peitgen HO; Bautz W
Rofo; 2003 Sep; 175(9):1220-4. PubMed ID: 12964077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.
Yang WT; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Murphy WA; Dryden MJ; Kushwaha AC; Sahin AA; Johnston D; Dempsey PJ; Shaw CC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):W576-81. PubMed ID: 17114508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. [Digital magnification mammography. A new technique for improved visualization of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis].
Reuther G; Hoffmann R; Bier B
Radiologe; 1993 May; 33(5):260-6. PubMed ID: 8516436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
