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.
177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9017014)
21. The influence of a perceptually linearized display on observer performance and visual search. Krupinski EA; Roehrig H Acad Radiol; 2000 Jan; 7(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 10645452 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns. Al Mousa DS; Brennan PC; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Tan J; Mello-Thoms C Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1386-93. PubMed ID: 25172414 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The perception of breast cancer: what differentiates missed from reported cancers in mammography? Mello-Thoms C; Dunn S; Nodine CF; Kundel HL; Weinstein SP Acad Radiol; 2002 Sep; 9(9):1004-12. PubMed ID: 12238541 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Influences of Radiology Trainees on Screening Mammography Interpretation. Hawley JR; Taylor CR; Cubbison AM; Erdal BS; Yildiz VO; Carkaci S J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 May; 13(5):554-61. PubMed ID: 26924162 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A computational model to generate simulated three-dimensional breast masses. de Sisternes L; Brankov JG; Zysk AM; Schmidt RA; Nishikawa RM; Wernick MN Med Phys; 2015 Feb; 42(2):1098-118. PubMed ID: 25652522 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Automated segmentation of digitized mammograms. Bick U; Giger ML; Schmidt RA; Nishikawa RM; Wolverton DE; Doi K Acad Radiol; 1995 Jan; 2(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 9419517 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A regional registration technique for automated interval change analysis of breast lesions on mammograms. Sanjay-Gopal S; Chan HP; Wilson T; Helvie M; Petrick N; Sahiner B Med Phys; 1999 Dec; 26(12):2669-79. PubMed ID: 10619252 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Recurrence quantification analysis of radiologists' scanpaths when interpreting mammograms. Gandomkar Z; Tay K; Brennan PC; Mello-Thoms C Med Phys; 2018 Jul; 45(7):3052-3062. PubMed ID: 29694675 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Simulated lesion, human observer performance comparison between thin-section dedicated breast CT images versus computed thick-section simulated projection images of the breast. Chen L; Boone JM; Abbey CK; Hargreaves J; Bateni C; Lindfors KK; Yang K; Nosratieh A; Hernandez A; Gazi P Phys Med Biol; 2015 Apr; 60(8):3347-58. PubMed ID: 25825980 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: automated alignment of breast images and its effect on bilateral-subtraction technique. Yin FF; Giger ML; Doi K; Vyborny CJ; Schmidt RA Med Phys; 1994 Mar; 21(3):445-52. PubMed ID: 8208220 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Diagnostic performance of breast technologists in reading mammograms in a clinical patient population. van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Flobbe K Int J Clin Pract; 2010 Mar; 64(4):442-50. PubMed ID: 20456190 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. An investigation of radiologists' perception of lesion similarity: observations with paired breast masses on mammograms and paired lung nodules on CT images. Kumazawa S; Muramatsu C; Li Q; Li F; Shiraishi J; Caligiuri P; Schmidt RA; MacMahon H; Doi K Acad Radiol; 2008 Jul; 15(7):887-94. PubMed ID: 18572125 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection. Webb LJ; Samei E; Lo JY; Baker JA; Ghate SV; Kim C; Soo MS; Walsh R Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):1972-80. PubMed ID: 21626930 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. Beam CA; Conant EF; Sickles EA J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Feb; 95(4):282-90. PubMed ID: 12591984 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Automated computerized classification of malignant and benign masses on digitized mammograms. Huo Z; Giger ML; Vyborny CJ; Wolverton DE; Schmidt RA; Doi K Acad Radiol; 1998 Mar; 5(3):155-68. PubMed ID: 9522881 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography in a clinical population: performance of radiologist and technologists. van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Boetes C; Flobbe K Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2010 Apr; 120(2):499-506. PubMed ID: 19418215 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Automated detection of breast masses on mammograms using adaptive contrast enhancement and texture classification. Petrick N; Chan HP; Wei D; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Adler DD Med Phys; 1996 Oct; 23(10):1685-96. PubMed ID: 8946366 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]