Optimal Presentation Modes for Detecting Brain Tumor Progression

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Matsuo Y,
   2. Shimizu A,
   3. Kobatake H

   . An interval change detection method for two chest X-ray images with different rotation angles of the human body and its performance evaluation. Syst Comput Jpn 2007; 36: 30–42
2. 2.↵
   1. Resnick RA,
   2. O'Regan JK,
   3. Clark JJ

   . To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psych Sci 1997; 8: 368–77

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Patriarche J,
   2. Erickson B

   . Part 1. Automated change detection and characterization in serial MR studies of brain-tumor patients. J Digit Imaging 2007; 20: 203–22

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Patriarche J,
   2. Erickson B

   . Part 2. Automated change detection and characterization applied to serial MR of brain tumors may detect progression earlier than human experts. J Digit Imaging 2007; 20: 321–28

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Therasse P,
   2. Arbuck SG,
   3. Eisenhauer EA,
   4. et al

   . New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 205–16

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Cohen J

   . Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213–20

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Haygood T,
   2. Wang J,
   3. Atkinson E,
   4. et al

   . Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: 216–20

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Reiner B,
   2. Siegel E,
   3. Hooper F,
   4. et al

   . Radiologists' productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 861–64

   PubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Fleishon H,
   2. Bhargavan M,
   3. Meghea C

   . Radiologists' reading times using PACS and using films: one practice's experience. Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 453–60

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Mathie A,
    2. Strickland N

    . Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode. Radiology 1997; 203: 207–09

    PubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Chan L,
    2. Trambert M,
    3. Kywi A,
    4. et al

    . PACS in private practice—effect on profits and productivity. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15: 131–36

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Schellingerhout D,
    2. Lev MH,
    3. Bagga RJ,
    4. et al

    . Coregistration of head CT comparison studies: assessment of clinical utility. Acad Radiol 2003; 10: 242–48

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Hajnal JV,
    2. Saeed N,
    3. Oatridge A,
    4. et al

    . Detection of subtle brain changes using subvoxel registration and subtraction of serial MR images. J Comp Tomogr 1995; 19: 677–91

    CrossRef
14. 14.↵
    1. Tan IL,
    2. van Schijndel RA,
    3. Fazekas F,
    4. et al

    . Image registration and subtraction to detect active T(2) lesions in MS: an interobserver study. J Neurol 2002; 249: 767–73

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Erickson B,
    2. Patriarche J,
    3. Wood C,
    4. et al

    . Image registration improves confidence and accuracy of image interpretation. Cancer Inform 2007; 4: 19–24

    PubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Alpert NM,
    2. Berdichevsky D,
    3. Levin Z,
    4. et al

    . Performance evaluation of an automated system for registration and postprocessing of CT scans. J Comput Tomogr 2001; 25: 747–52

    CrossRef
17. 17.↵
    1. Takao H,
    2. Doi I,
    3. Watanabe T,
    4. et al

    . Temporal subtraction of thin-section thoracic computed tomography based on a 3-dimensional nonlinear geometric warping technique. J Comput Tomogr 2006; 30: 283–86

    CrossRef
18. 18.↵
    1. Erickson BJ,
    2. Mandrekar J,
    3. Wang L,
    4. et al

    . Effect of automated image registration on radiologist interpretation. J Digit Imaging 2007; 20: 105–13

    CrossRefPubMed