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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10898036)

  • 1. Interpolation algorithms for digital mammography systems with multiple detectors.
    Liu H; Wang G; Chen J; Fajardo LL
    Acad Radiol; 1999 Mar; 6(3):170-5. PubMed ID: 10898036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of magnetic resonance image interpolation on the results of texture-based pattern classification: a phantom study.
    Mayerhoefer ME; Szomolanyi P; Jirak D; Berg A; Materka A; Dirisamer A; Trattnig S
    Invest Radiol; 2009 Jul; 44(7):405-11. PubMed ID: 19465863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Detection of clustered microcalcifications in small field digital mammography.
    Arodź T; Kurdziel M; Popiela TJ; Sevre EO; Yuen DA
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2006 Jan; 81(1):56-65. PubMed ID: 16310282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Morphology-based three-dimensional interpolation.
    Lee TY; Wang WH
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2000 Jul; 19(7):711-21. PubMed ID: 11055786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
    Uematsu T; Kasami M
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Adaptive image interpolation for full-field digital x-ray mammography.
    Liu H; Wang G; Xu F; Fajardo LL
    Appl Opt; 1999 Jan; 38(1):253-7. PubMed ID: 18305611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Survey: interpolation methods in medical image processing.
    Lehmann TM; Gönner C; Spitzer K
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1999 Nov; 18(11):1049-75. PubMed ID: 10661324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Computed tomographic metal artifact reduction for the detection and quantitation of small features near large metallic implants: a comparison of published methods.
    Rinkel J; Dillon WP; Funk T; Gould R; Prevrhal S
    J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2008; 32(4):621-9. PubMed ID: 18664852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.
    Uematsu T; Kasami M; Uchida Y
    Acta Radiol; 2007 Sep; 48(7):714-20. PubMed ID: 17729000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An objective comparison of 3-D image interpolation methods.
    Grevera GJ; Udupa JK
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1998 Aug; 17(4):642-52. PubMed ID: 9845319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Spectral phase based medical image processing.
    Kothapalli SR; Yelleswarapu CS; Naraharisetty SG; Wu P; Rao DV
    Acad Radiol; 2005 Jun; 12(6):708-21. PubMed ID: 15935969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Application of wavelets to the evaluation of phantom images for mammography quality control.
    Alvarez M; Pina DR; Miranda JR; Duarte SB
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(21):7177-90. PubMed ID: 23060095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [3D reconstruction of microcalcification clusters].
    Wolf D; Gresson R; Stines J; Daul C; Troufléau P
    J Radiol; 2001 Jun; 82(6 Pt 1):647-51. PubMed ID: 11449166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Phantom-based comparison of conventional versus phase-contrast mammography for LCD soft-copy diagnosis.
    Ihori A; Fujita N; Sugiura A; Yasuda N; Kodera Y
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2013 Jul; 8(4):621-33. PubMed ID: 23263885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Anthropomorphic radiological phantoms for mammography.
    Yaffe MJ; Byng JW; Caldwell CB; Bennett NR
    Med Prog Technol; 1993; 19(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 8302211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A controlled phantom study of a noise equalization algorithm for detecting microcalcifications in digital mammograms.
    Gürün OO; Fatouros PP; Kuhn GM; de Paredes ES
    Med Phys; 2001 Apr; 28(4):445-54. PubMed ID: 11339740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sampling concerns in scanline algorithms.
    Fleury M; Clark AF
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1997 Jun; 16(3):349-61. PubMed ID: 9184897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.