Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:18491108rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0006142lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0024671lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0596972lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0348026lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0597198lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1300749lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1690006lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1441526lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0086296lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1948062lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1521743lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1880157lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0181904lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1704608lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1704646lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0728873lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:issue11lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:dateCreated2008-10-13lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:abstractTextThe purpose was to compare observer performance in the detection of breast cancer using hard-copy film, and 3-megapixel (3-MP) and 5-megapixel (5-MP) liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors in a simulated screening setting. We amassed 100 sample sets, including 32 patients with surgically proven breast cancer (masses present, N = 12; microcalcifications, N = 10; other types, N = 10) and 68 normal controls. All the mammograms were obtained using computed radiography (CR; sampling pitch of 50 mum). Twelve mammographers independently assessed CR mammograms presented in random order for hard-copy and soft-copy reading at minimal 4-week intervals. Observers rated the images on seven-point (1 to 7) and continuous (0 to 100) malignancy scales. Receiver-operating-characteristics analysis was performed, and the average area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each modality. The jackknife method with the Bonferroni correction was applied to multireader/multicase analysis. The average AUC values for the 3-MP LCD, 5-MP LCD, and hard-copy film were 0.954, 0.947, and 0.956 on the seven-point scale and 0.943, 0.923, and 0.944 on the continuous scale, respectively. There were no significant differences among the three modalities on either scale. Soft-copy reading using 3-MP and 5-MP LCDs is comparable to hard-copy reading for detecting breast cancer.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:monthNovlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:issn1432-1084lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:authorpubmed-author:YamadaTakayuk...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:authorpubmed-author:TakahashiShok...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SuzukiAkihiko...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:authorpubmed-author:OhuchiNoriaki...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:authorpubmed-author:UchiyamaNachi...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:issnTypeElectroniclld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:volume18lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:pagination2363-9lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:18491108...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:year2008lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:articleTitleDiagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University, Graduate School of Medicine, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan. yamataka@rad.med.tohoku.ac.jplld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:publicationTypeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:18491108pubmed:publicationTypeEvaluation Studieslld:pubmed