These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10179716)

  • 21. Computerized evaluation of mammographic image quality using phantom images.
    Dougherty G
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 1998; 22(5):365-73. PubMed ID: 9890181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [Digital magnification mammography. A new technique for improved visualization of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis].
    Reuther G; Hoffmann R; Bier B
    Radiologe; 1993 May; 33(5):260-6. PubMed ID: 8516436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A digital density equalization technique to improve visualization of breast periphery in mammography.
    Stefanoyiannis AP; Costaridou L; Sakellaropoulos P; Panayiotakis G
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Apr; 73(868):410-20. PubMed ID: 10844867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Early detection of breast cancer. Is digital mammography more sensitive? (interview by Dr. Thomas Meissner)].
    Langer M
    MMW Fortschr Med; 2004 Jun; 146(24):12. PubMed ID: 15366485
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Follow-up of surgical biopsies in microcalcifications of the breast. Comparative analysis of patients submitted to mammography and digitalization of mammographic images].
    Rulli A; Cirocchi R; Vento AR; Naninato P; Zanetti A; Carli L
    Minerva Chir; 1997; 52(7-8):933-6. PubMed ID: 9411295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Digital image magnification mammography with the storage-screen technique. Standardized and findings-oriented image processing parameters].
    Hundertmark C; Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Grabbe E
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 May; 7(3):135-40. PubMed ID: 9296608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A novel approach to microcalcification detection using fuzzy logic technique.
    Cheng HD; Lui YM; Freimanis RI
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1998 Jun; 17(3):442-50. PubMed ID: 9735907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography?
    Huda W; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR; Bertrand EA
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1355-66. PubMed ID: 17070453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Improvement of microcalcification cluster detection in mammography utilizing image enhancement techniques.
    Papadopoulos A; Fotiadis DI; Costaridou L
    Comput Biol Med; 2008 Oct; 38(10):1045-55. PubMed ID: 18774128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Detecting clustered microcalcifications in the female breast: secondary digitized images versus mammograms.
    De Maeseneer M; Beeckman P; Osteaux M; Mattheus R; Hoste M; Bastaerts Y; Jong B
    J Belge Radiol; 1992 Jun; 75(3):173-8. PubMed ID: 1400145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Malignant and benign clustered microcalcifications: automated feature analysis and classification.
    Jiang Y; Nishikawa RM; Wolverton DE; Metz CE; Giger ML; Schmidt RA; Vyborny CJ; Doi K
    Radiology; 1996 Mar; 198(3):671-8. PubMed ID: 8628853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Adaptive mammographic image enhancement using first derivative and local statistics.
    Kim JK; Park JM; Song KS; Park HW
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1997 Oct; 16(5):495-502. PubMed ID: 9368105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Digital mammography.
    Feig SA; Yaffe MJ
    Radiographics; 1998; 18(4):893-901. PubMed ID: 9672974
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Computer vision and artificial intelligence in mammography.
    Vyborny CJ; Giger ML
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Mar; 162(3):699-708. PubMed ID: 8109525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluation of a novel method of noise reduction using computer-simulated mammograms.
    Tischenko O; Hoeschen C; Dance DR; Hunt RA; Maidment AD; Bakic PR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):81-4. PubMed ID: 15933085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Physical evaluation of computed radiography as a mammographic X-ray imaging system.
    Workman A; Cowen AR; Brettle DS
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Oct; 67(802):988-96. PubMed ID: 8000844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Comments on the article "Focus measurement and geometric lack of focus in mammography equipment"].
    Andersson O
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1994 Nov; 4(6):351-2. PubMed ID: 7819303
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Digitization of microcalcifications in breast radiographs. Correlation with pathologic data.
    Charpin C; Allasia C; Davies JD; Devictor B; Boulat J; Ansaldi JL; Lavaut MN; Serradour B; Andrac L; Piana L
    Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1995 Aug; 17(4):230-40. PubMed ID: 8526947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Imaging diagnosis of breast cancer].
    Fujimitsu R; Okazaki M; Ida M
    Nihon Rinsho; 2007 Jun; 65 Suppl 6():235-40. PubMed ID: 17682160
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3185-99. PubMed ID: 17505097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.