Digital Mammography 2003
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-59327-7_117
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Full Field Digital and Analog Mammograms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 6 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A study on 34 paired analog and digital examinations of women with known breast lesions showed superior lesion characterization with digital imaging, indicated by Az values of 0.81 versus 0.75, showing a significant difference (Van Woudenberg et al, 2003). In a study on 57 clusters of microcalcification image, quality was assessed to be superior with FFDM in 50% and showed more calcifications in 41% of patients, with equivalence in all the other cases.…”
Section: Clinical or Diagnostic Digital Mammographymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…A study on 34 paired analog and digital examinations of women with known breast lesions showed superior lesion characterization with digital imaging, indicated by Az values of 0.81 versus 0.75, showing a significant difference (Van Woudenberg et al, 2003). In a study on 57 clusters of microcalcification image, quality was assessed to be superior with FFDM in 50% and showed more calcifications in 41% of patients, with equivalence in all the other cases.…”
Section: Clinical or Diagnostic Digital Mammographymentioning
confidence: 98%