The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dedicated Breast CT: Initial Clinical Experience
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively and intraindividually compare dedicated breast computed tomographic (CT) images with screen-film mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patient studies were performed according to protocols approved by the institutional review board and Radiation Use Committee; informed consent was obtained. A breast CT scanner prototype was used to individually scan uncompressed breasts in 10 healthy volunteers (mean age, 52.1 years) and 69 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 and 5 lesions (mean age, 54.4 years). In women with lesions, breast CT images were compared with screen-film mammograms by an experienced mammographer and ranked with a continuous scale of 1-10 (score 1, excellent lesion visualization with CT and poor visualization with mammography; score 5.5, equal visualization with both modalities; and score 10, poor visualization with CT and excellent visualization with mammography). A Wilcoxon signed rank procedure was used to test the null hypothesis that ratings were symmetric at about a score of 5.5 for the entire group and for distinguishing microcalcifications versus masses and other findings and benign versus malignant lesions and for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Women were asked to compare their comfort during CT with that during mammography on a continuous scale of 1-10. With a Wilcoxon signed rank procedure, the null hypothesis that comfort ratings were symmetric about a score of 5.5 (equal comfort with CT and mammography) was tested. RESULTS: Overall, CT was equal to mammography for visualization of breast lesions. Breast CT was significantly better than mammography for visualization of masses (P = .002); mammography outperformed CT for visualization of microcalcifications (P = .006). No significant differences between CT and mammography were seen among benign versus malignant lesions or for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Subjects found CT significantly more comfortable than mammography (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Some technical challenges remain, but breast CT is promising and may have potential clinical applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening
Pisano, E. D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., Yaffe, M., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L., D'Orsi, C., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa052911 · Cited by 1,940
Kriege, M., Brekelmans, C. T. M., Boetes, C., Besnard, P. E., Zonderland, H. M., Obdeijn, I. M., Manoliu, R. A., Kok, T., Peterse, H., Tilanus-Linthorst, M. M. A., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa031759 · Cited by 1,687
Kuhl, C. K., Schrading, S., Leutner, C. C., Morakkabati-Spitz, N., Wardelmann, E., Fimmers, R., Kuhn, W., & Schild, H. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.00.4960 · Cited by 1,147
Mandelson, M. T. (2000) · Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081 · Cited by 1,031
Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging.
Niklason, L. T., Christian, B. T., Niklason, L. E., Kopans, D. B., Castleberry, D. E., Opsahl-Ong, B. H., Landberg, C. E., Slanetz, P. J., Giardino, A. A., Moore, R., et al. (1997) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356620 · Cited by 763
Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening
Pisano, E. D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., Yaffe, M., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L., D???Orsi, C., et al. (2006) · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · doi:10.1097/01.ogx.0000201894.94616.71 · Cited by 482
Dedicated Breast CT: Radiation Dose and Image Quality Evaluation
Boone, J. M., Nelson, T. R., Lindfors, K. K., & Seibert, J. A. (2001) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2213010334 · Cited by 468
Self-citationTHE SWEDISH TWO-COUNTY TRIAL TWENTY YEARS LATER
Tabár, L., Vitak, B., Chen, H.-H., Duffy, S. W., Yen, M.-F., Chiang, C.-F., Krusemo, U. B., Tot, T., & Smith, R. A. (2000) · Radiologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/s0033-8389(05)70191-3 · Cited by 460
Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging
Lehman, C. D., Blume, J. D., Weatherall, P., Thickman, D., Hylton, N., Warner, E., Pisano, E., Schnitt, S. J., Gatsonis, C., Schnall, M., et al. (2005) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.20971 · Cited by 401
Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Subtraction Mammography: Feasibility
Lewin, J. M., Isaacs, P. K., Vance, V., & Larke, F. J. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2291021276 · Cited by 389
Cited by
Hsu, J. C., Naha, P. C., Lau, K. C., Chhour, P., Hastings, R., Moon, B. F., Stein, J. M., Witschey, W. R. T., McDonald, E. S., Maidment, A. D. A., et al. (2018) · Nanoscale · doi:10.1039/c8nr03741h · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Lindfors, K. K., Boone, J. M., Nelson, T. R., Yang, K., Kwan, A. L. C., & Miller, D. F.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 246
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 725-733
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2110445810
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 24.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dedicated Breast CT: Initial Clinical Experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2463070410
- The paper
- Lindfors, K. K., Boone, J. M., Nelson, T. R., Yang, K., Kwan, A. L. C., & Miller, D. F. (2008). Dedicated Breast CT: Initial Clinical Experience. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2463070410
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.