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.
136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10587207)
1. Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms. Hemminger BM; Dillon AW; Johnston RE; Muller KE; Deluca MC; Coffey CS; Pisano ED Med Phys; 1999 Nov; 26(11):2266-72. PubMed ID: 10587207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting. Pisano ED; Chandramouli J; Hemminger BM; Glueck D; Johnston RE; Muller K; Braeuning MP; Puff D; Garrett W; Pizer S J Digit Imaging; 1997 Nov; 10(4):174-82. PubMed ID: 9399171 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Improving the detection of simulated masses in mammograms through two different image-processing techniques. Hemminger BM; Zong S; Muller KE; Coffey CS; DeLuca MC; Johnston RE; Pisano ED Acad Radiol; 2001 Sep; 8(9):845-55. PubMed ID: 11724039 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms? Pisano ED; Chandramouli J; Hemminger BM; DeLuca M; Glueck D; Johnston RE; Muller K; Braeuning MP; Pizer S J Digit Imaging; 1997 May; 10(2):79-84. PubMed ID: 9165422 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography. Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Object detectability at increased ambient lighting conditions. Pollard BJ; Chawla AS; Delong DM; Hashimoto N; Samei E Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2204-13. PubMed ID: 18649449 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search. Krupinski E; Roehrig H; Furukawa T Acad Radiol; 1999 Jul; 6(7):411-8. PubMed ID: 10410166 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Digital mammography: comparative performance of color LCD and monochrome CRT displays. Samei E; Poolla A; Ulissey MJ; Lewin JM Acad Radiol; 2007 May; 14(5):539-46. PubMed ID: 17434067 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms. Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of a cathode-ray-tube and film for display of computed radiographic images. Cook LT; Cox GG; Insana MF; McFadden MA; Hall TJ; Gaborski RS; Lure FY Med Phys; 1998 Jul; 25(7 Pt 1):1132-8. PubMed ID: 9682198 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A perceptually tempered display for digital mammograms. Kundel HL; Weinstein SP; Conant EF; Toto LC; Nodine CF Radiographics; 1999; 19(5):1313-8. PubMed ID: 10489182 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis. Chawla AS; Samei E; Saunders R; Abbey C; Delong D Med Phys; 2007 Aug; 34(8):3385-98. PubMed ID: 17879801 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms. Pisano ED; Zong S; Hemminger BM; DeLuca M; Johnston RE; Muller K; Braeuning MP; Pizer SM J Digit Imaging; 1998 Nov; 11(4):193-200. PubMed ID: 9848052 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. Samei E; Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):396-404. PubMed ID: 17356178 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Pisano ED; Cole EB; Major S; Zong S; Hemminger BM; Muller KE; Johnston RE; Walsh R; Conant E; Fajardo LL; Feig SA; Nishikawa RM; Yaffe MJ; Williams MB; Aylward SR Radiology; 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30. PubMed ID: 10966717 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Saunders RS; Samei E; Baker J; Delong D; Soo MS; Walsh R; Pisano E; Kuzmiak CM; Pavic D Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26. PubMed ID: 17070449 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A method to test the reproducibility and to improve performance of computer-aided detection schemes for digitized mammograms. Zheng B; Gur D; Good WF; Hardesty LA Med Phys; 2004 Nov; 31(11):2964-72. PubMed ID: 15587648 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding? Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Detection of breast masses in mammograms by density slicing and texture flow-field analysis. Mudigonda NR; Rangayyan RM; Desautels JE IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1215-27. PubMed ID: 11811822 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of different compression techniques on diagnostic accuracies of breast masses on digitized mammograms. Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yang Y; Rong D; Yao X; Li K Acta Radiol; 2008 Sep; 49(7):747-51. PubMed ID: 18608020 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]