Search details
1.
The risk-based breast screening (RIBBS) study protocol: a personalized screening model for young women.
Radiol Med
; 129(5): 727-736, 2024 May.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38512619
2.
Using automated software evaluation to improve the performance of breast radiographers in tomosynthesis screening.
Eur Radiol
; 2023 Nov 29.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38019313
3.
Repeat Screening Outcomes with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Synthetic Mammography for Breast Cancer Detection: Results from the Prospective Verona Pilot Study.
Radiology
; 298(1): 49-57, 2021 01.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33170101
4.
Can we reduce the workload of mammographic screening by automatic identification of normal exams with artificial intelligence? A feasibility study.
Eur Radiol
; 29(9): 4825-4832, 2019 Sep.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30993432
5.
Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis.
Eur Radiol
; 28(2): 573-581, 2018 Feb.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28819862
6.
Optimal follow-up intervals in active surveillance of renal masses in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease.
Eur Radiol
; 25(7): 2025-32, 2015 Jul.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25636418
7.
Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM.
Eur Radiol Exp
; 8(1): 49, 2024 Apr 16.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38622388
8.
Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography.
Eur Radiol
; 23(3): 664-72, 2013 Mar.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22976919
9.
Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
Eur Radiol
; 23(8): 2087-94, 2013 Aug.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23620367
10.
Artifact reduction in contrast-enhanced mammography.
Insights Imaging
; 13(1): 90, 2022 May 13.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35554734
11.
Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison.
Cancers (Basel)
; 14(7)2022 Mar 31.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35406546
12.
The Multidisciplinary Approach in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer over Ten Years: From Radiation Therapy Optimisation to Innovative Systemic Treatments.
Cancers (Basel)
; 14(22)2022 Nov 20.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36428792
13.
Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.
J Clin Med
; 10(15)2021 Jul 27.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34362092
14.
Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study.
Eur Radiol
; 20(7): 1545-53, 2010 Jul.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20033175
15.
Accuracy of mammography dosimetry in the era of the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom transposition.
Eur J Radiol
; 127: 108986, 2020 Jun.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32298958
16.
Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.
J Natl Cancer Inst
; 111(9): 916-922, 2019 09 01.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30834436
17.
The "perfect" reader study.
Eur J Radiol
; 103: 139-146, 2018 Jun.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29653758
18.
Quality Controls in Digital Mammography protocol of the EFOMP Mammo Working group.
Phys Med
; 48: 55-64, 2018 Apr.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29728229
19.
Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
Med Phys
; 34(2): 547-55, 2007 Feb.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17388172
20.
Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
Phys Med Biol
; 50(8): 1851-70, 2005 Apr 21.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15815100