Accuracy of Soft-Copy Digital Mammography versus That of Screen-Film Mammography according to Digital Manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST Retrospective Multireader Study
Purpose: To retrospectively compare the accuracy for cancer diagnosis of digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation with that of screen-film mammography for each digital equipment manufacturer, by using results of biopsy and follow-up as the reference standard. Materials and Methods: The prim...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Radiology 2008-04, Vol.247 (1), p.38-48 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 48 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 38 |
| container_title | Radiology |
| container_volume | 247 |
| creator | HENDRICK, R. Edward COLE, Elodia B REBNER, Murray GATSONIS, Constantine PISANO, Ella D ACHARYYA, Suddhasatta MARQUES COHEN, Michael A JONG, Roberta A MAWDSLEY, Gordon E KANAL, Kalpana M D'ORSI, Carl J |
| description | Purpose: To retrospectively compare the accuracy for cancer diagnosis of digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation with that
of screen-film mammography for each digital equipment manufacturer, by using results of biopsy and follow-up as the reference
standard.
Materials and Methods: The primary HIPAA-compliant Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was approved by the institutional review
board of each study site, and informed consent was obtained. The approvals and consent included use of data for future HIPAA-compliant
retrospective research. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network DMIST collected screening mammography studies performed
by using both digital and screen-film mammography in 49Â 528 women (mean age, 54.6 years; range, 19â92 years). Digital mammography
systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, GE, and Hologic) were used. For each digital manufacturer, a cancer-enriched
reader set of women screened with both digital and screen-film mammography in DMIST was constructed. Each reader set contained
all cancer-containing studies known for each digital manufacturer at the time of reader set selection, together with a subset
of negative and benign studies. For each reader set, six or 12 experienced radiologists attended two randomly ordered reading
sessions 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist identified suspicious findings and rated suspicion of breast cancer in identified
lesions by using a seven-point scale. Results were analyzed according to digital manufacturer by using areas under the receiver
operating characteristic curve (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity for soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Results
for Hologic digital are not presented owing to the fact that few cancer cases were available. The implemented design provided
80% power to detect average AUC differences of 0.09, 0.08, and 0.06 for Fischer, Fuji, and GE, respectively.
Results: No significant difference in AUC, sensitivity, or specificity was found between Fischer, Fuji, and GE soft-copy digital and
screen-film mammography. Large reader variations occurred with each modality.
Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were found between soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji,
and GE digital mammography equipment.
© RSNA, 2008 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1148/radiol.2471070418 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20668968</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>20668968</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-9f893d365290566229bba5ec4e111a641c0f2bdce1aab607c33dc998926ad15d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkc1u1DAUhS0EosPAA7BB3sAGpfgnPza70ZTCSB2QOsPaunGcjFESp7ZTlKfhVUmZiMLm3s13zrm6B6HXlFxSmooPHirr2kuWFpQUJKXiCVrRjBUJ5TR7ilaEcJ6IlMoL9CKEH4TQNBPFc3RBBS9YmvMV-rXRevSgJ-xqfHB1TLZumPCVbWyEFu-h61zjYThN-N74MAZ8PEH8A2tvTJ9c27b7DwOtna9s3-Do_vHpxxp0HL3xH_Fme7v7iq_2u8MR35roXRiMjvbe4P3YRusNVMbjQxyr6SV6VkMbzKtlr9H360_H7Zfk5tvn3XZzk-iUy5jIWkhe8TxjkmR5zpgsS8iMTg2lFPKUalKzstKGApQ5KTTnlZZSSJZDRbOKr9G7s-_g3d1oQlSdDdq0LfTGjUExkudC5mIG6RnU89nBm1oN3nbgJ0WJemhFnVtRj63MmjeL-Vh2pnpULDXMwNsFgKChrT302oa_HCOM84exRu_P3Mk2p5_zo1TooG1nW77EumaagxVVXPDfOXun7Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20668968</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of Soft-Copy Digital Mammography versus That of Screen-Film Mammography according to Digital Manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST Retrospective Multireader Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>HENDRICK, R. Edward ; COLE, Elodia B ; REBNER, Murray ; GATSONIS, Constantine ; PISANO, Ella D ; ACHARYYA, Suddhasatta ; MARQUES ; COHEN, Michael A ; JONG, Roberta A ; MAWDSLEY, Gordon E ; KANAL, Kalpana M ; D'ORSI, Carl J</creator><creatorcontrib>HENDRICK, R. Edward ; COLE, Elodia B ; REBNER, Murray ; GATSONIS, Constantine ; PISANO, Ella D ; ACHARYYA, Suddhasatta ; MARQUES ; COHEN, Michael A ; JONG, Roberta A ; MAWDSLEY, Gordon E ; KANAL, Kalpana M ; D'ORSI, Carl J</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: To retrospectively compare the accuracy for cancer diagnosis of digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation with that
of screen-film mammography for each digital equipment manufacturer, by using results of biopsy and follow-up as the reference
standard.
Materials and Methods: The primary HIPAA-compliant Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was approved by the institutional review
board of each study site, and informed consent was obtained. The approvals and consent included use of data for future HIPAA-compliant
retrospective research. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network DMIST collected screening mammography studies performed
by using both digital and screen-film mammography in 49Â 528 women (mean age, 54.6 years; range, 19â92 years). Digital mammography
systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, GE, and Hologic) were used. For each digital manufacturer, a cancer-enriched
reader set of women screened with both digital and screen-film mammography in DMIST was constructed. Each reader set contained
all cancer-containing studies known for each digital manufacturer at the time of reader set selection, together with a subset
of negative and benign studies. For each reader set, six or 12 experienced radiologists attended two randomly ordered reading
sessions 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist identified suspicious findings and rated suspicion of breast cancer in identified
lesions by using a seven-point scale. Results were analyzed according to digital manufacturer by using areas under the receiver
operating characteristic curve (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity for soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Results
for Hologic digital are not presented owing to the fact that few cancer cases were available. The implemented design provided
80% power to detect average AUC differences of 0.09, 0.08, and 0.06 for Fischer, Fuji, and GE, respectively.
Results: No significant difference in AUC, sensitivity, or specificity was found between Fischer, Fuji, and GE soft-copy digital and
screen-film mammography. Large reader variations occurred with each modality.
Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were found between soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji,
and GE digital mammography equipment.
© RSNA, 2008</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-8419</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2471070418</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18372463</identifier><identifier>CODEN: RADLAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Area Under Curve ; Biological and medical sciences ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Female ; Genital system. Mammary gland ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Mammography - instrumentation ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Radiographic Image Enhancement - instrumentation ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; X-Ray Intensifying Screens</subject><ispartof>Radiology, 2008-04, Vol.247 (1), p.38-48</ispartof><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-9f893d365290566229bba5ec4e111a641c0f2bdce1aab607c33dc998926ad15d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-9f893d365290566229bba5ec4e111a641c0f2bdce1aab607c33dc998926ad15d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27928,27929</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=20233202$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18372463$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>HENDRICK, R. Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COLE, Elodia B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>REBNER, Murray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GATSONIS, Constantine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PISANO, Ella D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ACHARYYA, Suddhasatta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MARQUES</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COHEN, Michael A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JONG, Roberta A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAWDSLEY, Gordon E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KANAL, Kalpana M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'ORSI, Carl J</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of Soft-Copy Digital Mammography versus That of Screen-Film Mammography according to Digital Manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST Retrospective Multireader Study</title><title>Radiology</title><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><description>Purpose: To retrospectively compare the accuracy for cancer diagnosis of digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation with that
of screen-film mammography for each digital equipment manufacturer, by using results of biopsy and follow-up as the reference
standard.
Materials and Methods: The primary HIPAA-compliant Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was approved by the institutional review
board of each study site, and informed consent was obtained. The approvals and consent included use of data for future HIPAA-compliant
retrospective research. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network DMIST collected screening mammography studies performed
by using both digital and screen-film mammography in 49Â 528 women (mean age, 54.6 years; range, 19â92 years). Digital mammography
systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, GE, and Hologic) were used. For each digital manufacturer, a cancer-enriched
reader set of women screened with both digital and screen-film mammography in DMIST was constructed. Each reader set contained
all cancer-containing studies known for each digital manufacturer at the time of reader set selection, together with a subset
of negative and benign studies. For each reader set, six or 12 experienced radiologists attended two randomly ordered reading
sessions 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist identified suspicious findings and rated suspicion of breast cancer in identified
lesions by using a seven-point scale. Results were analyzed according to digital manufacturer by using areas under the receiver
operating characteristic curve (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity for soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Results
for Hologic digital are not presented owing to the fact that few cancer cases were available. The implemented design provided
80% power to detect average AUC differences of 0.09, 0.08, and 0.06 for Fischer, Fuji, and GE, respectively.
Results: No significant difference in AUC, sensitivity, or specificity was found between Fischer, Fuji, and GE soft-copy digital and
screen-film mammography. Large reader variations occurred with each modality.
Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were found between soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji,
and GE digital mammography equipment.
© RSNA, 2008</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genital system. Mammary gland</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Mammography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Enhancement - instrumentation</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>X-Ray Intensifying Screens</subject><issn>0033-8419</issn><issn>1527-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkc1u1DAUhS0EosPAA7BB3sAGpfgnPza70ZTCSB2QOsPaunGcjFESp7ZTlKfhVUmZiMLm3s13zrm6B6HXlFxSmooPHirr2kuWFpQUJKXiCVrRjBUJ5TR7ilaEcJ6IlMoL9CKEH4TQNBPFc3RBBS9YmvMV-rXRevSgJ-xqfHB1TLZumPCVbWyEFu-h61zjYThN-N74MAZ8PEH8A2tvTJ9c27b7DwOtna9s3-Do_vHpxxp0HL3xH_Fme7v7iq_2u8MR35roXRiMjvbe4P3YRusNVMbjQxyr6SV6VkMbzKtlr9H360_H7Zfk5tvn3XZzk-iUy5jIWkhe8TxjkmR5zpgsS8iMTg2lFPKUalKzstKGApQ5KTTnlZZSSJZDRbOKr9G7s-_g3d1oQlSdDdq0LfTGjUExkudC5mIG6RnU89nBm1oN3nbgJ0WJemhFnVtRj63MmjeL-Vh2pnpULDXMwNsFgKChrT302oa_HCOM84exRu_P3Mk2p5_zo1TooG1nW77EumaagxVVXPDfOXun7Q</recordid><startdate>20080401</startdate><enddate>20080401</enddate><creator>HENDRICK, R. Edward</creator><creator>COLE, Elodia B</creator><creator>REBNER, Murray</creator><creator>GATSONIS, Constantine</creator><creator>PISANO, Ella D</creator><creator>ACHARYYA, Suddhasatta</creator><creator>MARQUES</creator><creator>COHEN, Michael A</creator><creator>JONG, Roberta A</creator><creator>MAWDSLEY, Gordon E</creator><creator>KANAL, Kalpana M</creator><creator>D'ORSI, Carl J</creator><general>Radiological Society of North America</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080401</creationdate><title>Accuracy of Soft-Copy Digital Mammography versus That of Screen-Film Mammography according to Digital Manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST Retrospective Multireader Study</title><author>HENDRICK, R. Edward ; COLE, Elodia B ; REBNER, Murray ; GATSONIS, Constantine ; PISANO, Ella D ; ACHARYYA, Suddhasatta ; MARQUES ; COHEN, Michael A ; JONG, Roberta A ; MAWDSLEY, Gordon E ; KANAL, Kalpana M ; D'ORSI, Carl J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-9f893d365290566229bba5ec4e111a641c0f2bdce1aab607c33dc998926ad15d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genital system. Mammary gland</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Mammography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Enhancement - instrumentation</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>X-Ray Intensifying Screens</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>HENDRICK, R. Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COLE, Elodia B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>REBNER, Murray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GATSONIS, Constantine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PISANO, Ella D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ACHARYYA, Suddhasatta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MARQUES</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COHEN, Michael A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JONG, Roberta A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAWDSLEY, Gordon E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KANAL, Kalpana M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'ORSI, Carl J</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>HENDRICK, R. Edward</au><au>COLE, Elodia B</au><au>REBNER, Murray</au><au>GATSONIS, Constantine</au><au>PISANO, Ella D</au><au>ACHARYYA, Suddhasatta</au><au>MARQUES</au><au>COHEN, Michael A</au><au>JONG, Roberta A</au><au>MAWDSLEY, Gordon E</au><au>KANAL, Kalpana M</au><au>D'ORSI, Carl J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of Soft-Copy Digital Mammography versus That of Screen-Film Mammography according to Digital Manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST Retrospective Multireader Study</atitle><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><date>2008-04-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>247</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>38</spage><epage>48</epage><pages>38-48</pages><issn>0033-8419</issn><eissn>1527-1315</eissn><coden>RADLAX</coden><abstract>Purpose: To retrospectively compare the accuracy for cancer diagnosis of digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation with that
of screen-film mammography for each digital equipment manufacturer, by using results of biopsy and follow-up as the reference
standard.
Materials and Methods: The primary HIPAA-compliant Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was approved by the institutional review
board of each study site, and informed consent was obtained. The approvals and consent included use of data for future HIPAA-compliant
retrospective research. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network DMIST collected screening mammography studies performed
by using both digital and screen-film mammography in 49Â 528 women (mean age, 54.6 years; range, 19â92 years). Digital mammography
systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, GE, and Hologic) were used. For each digital manufacturer, a cancer-enriched
reader set of women screened with both digital and screen-film mammography in DMIST was constructed. Each reader set contained
all cancer-containing studies known for each digital manufacturer at the time of reader set selection, together with a subset
of negative and benign studies. For each reader set, six or 12 experienced radiologists attended two randomly ordered reading
sessions 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist identified suspicious findings and rated suspicion of breast cancer in identified
lesions by using a seven-point scale. Results were analyzed according to digital manufacturer by using areas under the receiver
operating characteristic curve (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity for soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Results
for Hologic digital are not presented owing to the fact that few cancer cases were available. The implemented design provided
80% power to detect average AUC differences of 0.09, 0.08, and 0.06 for Fischer, Fuji, and GE, respectively.
Results: No significant difference in AUC, sensitivity, or specificity was found between Fischer, Fuji, and GE soft-copy digital and
screen-film mammography. Large reader variations occurred with each modality.
Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were found between soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji,
and GE digital mammography equipment.
© RSNA, 2008</abstract><cop>Oak Brook, IL</cop><pub>Radiological Society of North America</pub><pmid>18372463</pmid><doi>10.1148/radiol.2471070418</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0033-8419 |
| ispartof | Radiology, 2008-04, Vol.247 (1), p.38-48 |
| issn | 0033-8419 1527-1315 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20668968 |
| source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Area Under Curve Biological and medical sciences Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Female Genital system. Mammary gland Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Mammography - instrumentation Medical sciences Middle Aged Observer Variation Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry Radiographic Image Enhancement - instrumentation Sensitivity and Specificity X-Ray Intensifying Screens |
| title | Accuracy of Soft-Copy Digital Mammography versus That of Screen-Film Mammography according to Digital Manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST Retrospective Multireader Study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T18%3A03%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%20Soft-Copy%20Digital%20Mammography%20versus%20That%20of%20Screen-Film%20Mammography%20according%20to%20Digital%20Manufacturer:%20ACRIN%20DMIST%20Retrospective%20Multireader%20Study&rft.jtitle=Radiology&rft.au=HENDRICK,%20R.%20Edward&rft.date=2008-04-01&rft.volume=247&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=38&rft.epage=48&rft.pages=38-48&rft.issn=0033-8419&rft.eissn=1527-1315&rft.coden=RADLAX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1148/radiol.2471070418&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E20668968%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=20668968&rft_id=info:pmid/18372463&rfr_iscdi=true |