290 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11394537)
41. [Digital mammography with high-resolution storage plates (CR) versus full-field digital mammography (CCD) (DR) for microcalcifications and focal lesions -- a retrospective clinical histologic analysis (n = 102)].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Lell M; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Dassel MS; Bautz W
Rofo; 2005 Jan; 177(1):67-71. PubMed ID: 15657822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Sechopoulos I; D'Orsi CJ
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):130-7. PubMed ID: 17522348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Threshold pixel size for shape determination of microcalcifications in digital mammography: a pilot study.
Ruschin M; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Börjesson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Grahn A; Tingberg A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):415-23. PubMed ID: 15933149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. [Computer-aided segmentation, form analysis and classification of 2975 breast microcalcifications using 7-fold microfocus magnification mammography].
Grunert JH; Khalifa R; Gmelin E
Rofo; 2004 Dec; 176(12):1759-65. PubMed ID: 15573286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study.
Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Petrick N; Roubidoux MA; Wilson TE; Adler DD; Paramagul C; Newman JS; Sanjay-Gopal S
Radiology; 1999 Sep; 212(3):817-27. PubMed ID: 10478252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. [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]
47. 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]
48. ROC study of the effect of stereoscopic imaging on assessment of breast lesions.
Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski LM; Lydick JT; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Nees A; Blane CE; Sahiner B
Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1001-9. PubMed ID: 15895583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Experimental determination of subjective similarity for pairs of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms: observer study results.
Muramatsu C; Li Q; Schmidt R; Suzuki K; Shiraishi J; Newstead G; Doi K
Med Phys; 2006 Sep; 33(9):3460-8. PubMed ID: 17022242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Computer-aided detection of mammographic microcalcifications: pattern recognition with an artificial neural network.
Chan HP; Lo SC; Sahiner B; Lam KL; Helvie MA
Med Phys; 1995 Oct; 22(10):1555-67. PubMed ID: 8551980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. A quantitative method for evaluating the detectability of lesions in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):214-8. PubMed ID: 18319282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Scale-space signatures for the detection of clustered microcalculations in digital mammograms.
Netsch T; Peitgen HO
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1999 Sep; 18(9):774-86. PubMed ID: 10571382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. A comparison of digitized storage phosphors and conventional mammography in the detection of malignant microcalcifications.
Oestmann JW; Kopans D; Hall DA; McCarthy KA; Rubens JR; Greene R
Invest Radiol; 1988 Oct; 23(10):725-8. PubMed ID: 3192395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. A fractal approach to the segmentation of microcalcifications in digital mammograms.
Lefebvre F; Benali H; Gilles R; Kahn E; Di Paola R
Med Phys; 1995 Apr; 22(4):381-90. PubMed ID: 7609718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. A method for detecting microcalcifications in digital mammograms.
Wallet BC; Solka JL; Priebe CE
J Digit Imaging; 1997 Aug; 10(3 Suppl 1):136-9. PubMed ID: 9268859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. LCD versus CRT monitors for digital mammography: a comparison of observer performance for the detection of clustered microcalcifications and masses.
Cha JH; Moon WK; Cho N; Lee EH; Park JS; Jang MJ
Acta Radiol; 2009 Dec; 50(10):1104-8. PubMed ID: 19922305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Performance of 2D Synthetic Mammography Versus Digital Mammography in the Detection of Microcalcifications at Screening.
Dodelzon K; Simon K; Dou E; Levy AD; Michaels AY; Askin G; Katzen JT
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jun; 214(6):1436-1444. PubMed ID: 32255687
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. Detection of microcalcifications on digital screening mammograms using varying degrees of monitor zooming.
Haygood TM; Arribas E; Liu QM; Atkinson EN; Brennan PC; Santiago L; Carkaci S; Lane D; Stephens TW; LePetross H; Adrada B; Davis P; Whitman GJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Oct; 197(4):W761-8. PubMed ID: 21940549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Detection of subtle microcalcifications: comparison of computed radiography and screen-film mammography.
Higashida Y; Moribe N; Morita K; Katsuda N; Hatemura M; Takada T; Takahashi M; Yamashita J
Radiology; 1992 May; 183(2):483-6. PubMed ID: 1561354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography using a hybrid performance test.
Cockmartin L; Marshall NW; Van Ongeval C; Aerts G; Stalmans D; Zanca F; Shaheen E; De Keyzer F; Dance DR; Young KC; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2015 May; 60(10):3939-58. PubMed ID: 25909596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
