Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 351

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 access
Lindfors, Karen K., Boone, John M., Nelson, Thomas R., Yang, Kai, Kwan, Alexander L. C., Miller, DeWitt F.·2008·Radiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2463070410

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 351

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.