FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2893503142> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2893503142 endingPage "640" @default.
• W2893503142 startingPage "639" @default.
• W2893503142 abstract "HomeRadiologyVol. 289, No. 3 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryEditorialIs Synthetic Mammography Comparable to Digital Mammography for Detection of Microcalcifications in Screening?Min Sun Bae , Woo Kyung MoonMin Sun Bae , Woo Kyung MoonAuthor AffiliationsFrom the Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul 03080, Korea.Address correspondence to M.S.B. (e-mail: [email protected]).Min Sun Bae Woo Kyung MoonPublished Online:Oct 2 2018https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181961MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In References1. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311(24):2499–2507. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14(7):583–589. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267(1):47–56. Link, Google Scholar4. Ratanaprasatporn L, Chikarmane SA, Giess CS. Strengths and weaknesses of synthetic mammography in screening. RadioGraphics 2017;37(7):1913–1927. Link, Google Scholar5. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2014;271(3):664–671. Link, Google Scholar6. Lai YC, Ray KM, Lee AY, et al. Microcalcifications detected at screening mammography: synthetic mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography. Radiology 2018;289:630–638. Link, Google Scholar7. Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology 2018;287(1):37–46. Link, Google Scholar8. Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, et al. Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 2016;281(3):730–736. Link, Google Scholar9. Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, et al. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 2016;17(8):1105–1113. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10. Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY, Kim GR, Ko ES, Park KW. Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 2018 Jun 21. [Epub ahead of print]. Crossref, Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived: Aug 21 2018Revision requested: Aug 27 2018Revision received: Aug 29 2018Accepted: Aug 31 2018Published online: Oct 02 2018Published in print: Dec 2018 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByMedical RadiologyPaolaClauser, MariannaFanizza, Pascal A. T.Baltzer2022Novel Approaches to Screening for Breast CancerRitse M. Mann, Regina Hooley, Richard G. Barr, Linda Moy, 8 September 2020 | Radiology, Vol. 297, No. 2Accompanying This ArticleMicrocalcifications Detected at Screening Mammography: Synthetic Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital MammographyOct 2 2018RadiologyRecommended Articles Microcalcifications Detected at Screening Mammography: Synthetic Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital MammographyRadiology2018Volume: 289Issue: 3pp. 630-638Strengths and Weaknesses of Synthetic Mammography in ScreeningRadioGraphics2017Volume: 37Issue: 7pp. 1913-1927Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical PracticeRadiology2019Volume: 292Issue: 1pp. 1-14Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy TechniquesRadioGraphics2019Volume: 39Issue: 2pp. 307-318Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital MammographyRadiology2020Volume: 297Issue: 3pp. 545-553See More RSNA Education Exhibits Implementation of Synthetic Mammography: Benefits, Drawbacks, and PitfallsDigital Posters2022Are We Ready to Substitute Synthesized Mammography for Full-Field Digital Mammography?Digital Posters2019The Money Behind Mammo: A Dive Into The Finances Of Breast ImagingDigital Posters2021 RSNA Case Collection Deodorant ArtifactRSNA Case Collection2021Ductal Carcinoma In SituRSNA Case Collection2022Ductal carcinoma in situRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 289, No. 3 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download" @default.
• W2893503142 created "2018-10-05" @default.
• W2893503142 creator A5026232254 @default.
• W2893503142 creator A5027445487 @default.
• W2893503142 date "2018-12-01" @default.
• W2893503142 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2893503142 title "Is Synthetic Mammography Comparable to Digital Mammography for Detection of Microcalcifications in Screening?" @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2111066681 @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2123869011 @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2149291062 @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2169331774 @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2460750615 @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2485747647 @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2768554242 @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2775704799 @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2808978406 @default.
• W2893503142 cites W2892555901 @default.
• W2893503142 doi "https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181961" @default.
• W2893503142 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30277447" @default.
• W2893503142 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2893503142 type Work @default.
• W2893503142 sameAs 2893503142 @default.
• W2893503142 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2893503142 countsByYear W28935031422020 @default.
• W2893503142 countsByYear W28935031422022 @default.
• W2893503142 countsByYear W28935031422023 @default.
• W2893503142 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2893503142 hasAuthorship W2893503142A5026232254 @default.
• W2893503142 hasAuthorship W2893503142A5027445487 @default.
• W2893503142 hasBestOaLocation W28935031421 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C147454874 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C2777432617 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C2780472235 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C2781281974 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C2909182381 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C121608353 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C126322002 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C126838900 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C147454874 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C19527891 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C2777432617 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C2780472235 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C2781281974 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C2908647359 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C2909182381 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C2989005 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C530470458 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C71924100 @default.
• W2893503142 hasConceptScore W2893503142C99454951 @default.
• W2893503142 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2893503142 hasLocation W28935031421 @default.
• W2893503142 hasLocation W28935031422 @default.
• W2893503142 hasOpenAccess W2893503142 @default.
• W2893503142 hasPrimaryLocation W28935031421 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W2000845075 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W2036173279 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W2108629395 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W2130017212 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W2149291062 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W2747392720 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W2897347202 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W2944306382 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W4220866805 @default.
• W2893503142 hasRelatedWork W4311482823 @default.
• W2893503142 hasVolume "289" @default.
• W2893503142 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2893503142 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2893503142 magId "2893503142" @default.
• W2893503142 workType "article" @default.