HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gromet, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gromet, M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection to Double Reading of Screening Mammograms: Review of 231,221 Mammograms

¹ Breast Imaging Section, Charlotte Radiology, P.A., 1701 East Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28203.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1 —Bar graph shows age distribution of patients, by decade, for those patients in double reading (gray bars) and computer-aided detection (black bars) groups.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 2 —Bar graph shows time since patients' most recent prior mammogram in our database or comparison study referenced (whichever is shorter). Data were available for 97.3% of double-read patients (gray bars) and for 97.8% of computer-aided detection patients (black bars). Each year's grouping includes 4-month grace period (e.g., 1 year includes up to 16 months).

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati