References
- Gitlin JN, Narayan AK, Mitchell CA, Akmal AM, Eisner DJ, Peterson LM, et al. A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations. J Digit Imaging 2007; 20: 42–52
- Pudas T, Korsoff L, Kallio T, Uhari M, Alanen A. Influence of film digitization on radiological interpretation. Br J Radiol 2005; 78: 993–6
- Gitlin JN, Scott WW, Bell K, Narayan A. Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizer. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15 Suppl 1: 57–63
- Powell KA, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Barry MM, Ganobcik SN, Cardenosa G. Film-screen versus digitized mammography: assessment of clinical equivalence. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173: 889–94
- Murphy JM, O'Hare NJ, Wheat D, McCarthy PA, Dowling A, Hayes R, et al. Digitized mammograms: a preliminary clinical evaluation and the potential for telemammography. J Telemed Telecare 1999; 5: 193–7
- Fajardo LL, Yoshino MT, Seeley GW, Hunt R, Hunter TB, Friedman R, et al. Detection of breast abnormalities on teleradiology transmitted mammograms. Invest Radiol 1990; 25: 1111–5
- Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992; 27: 723–31
- Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Marten K, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Skaane P, et al. Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 2003; 16: 341–4
- Parissis N, Kondylidou-Sidira A, Tsirlis A, Patias P. Conventional radiographs vs digitized radiographs: image quality assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005; 34: 353–6
- Chan HP, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K, Sickles EA. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol 1987; 22: 581–9