111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11724039)
1. 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]
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. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Utility of adaptive control processing for the interpretation of digital mammograms.
Jinnouchi M; Yabuuchi H; Kubo M; Tokunaga E; Yamamoto H; Honda H
Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1297-1303. PubMed ID: 25995309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Enhancement of Mammographic Images Using Histogram-Based Techniques for Their Classification Using CNN.
Alshamrani K; Alshamrani HA; Alqahtani FF; Almutairi BS
Sensors (Basel); 2022 Dec; 23(1):. PubMed ID: 36616832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study.
Sivaramakrishna R; Obuchowski NA; Chilcote WA; Cardenosa G; Powell KA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Jul; 175(1):45-51. PubMed ID: 10882244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Detection of breast cancer by soft-copy reading of digital mammograms: comparison between a routine image-processing parameter and high-contrast parameters.
Kamitani T; Yabuuchi H; Soeda H; Matsuo Y; Okafuji T; Sakai S; Setoguchi T; Hatakenaka M; Ishii N; Honda H
Acta Radiol; 2010 Feb; 51(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 19922328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. A computational model to generate simulated three-dimensional breast masses.
de Sisternes L; Brankov JG; Zysk AM; Schmidt RA; Nishikawa RM; Wernick MN
Med Phys; 2015 Feb; 42(2):1098-118. PubMed ID: 25652522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of enhancement methods for mammograms with performance measures.
Kurt B; Nabiyev VV; Turhan K
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2014; 205():486-90. PubMed ID: 25160232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Computerized nipple identification for multiple image analysis in computer-aided diagnosis.
Zhou C; Chan HP; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Petrick N
Med Phys; 2004 Oct; 31(10):2871-82. PubMed ID: 15543797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A segmentation technique to detect masses in dense breast digitized mammograms.
Santos VT; Schiabel H; Góes CE; Benatti RH
J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():210-3. PubMed ID: 12105730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A method for determination of optimal image enhancement for the detection of mammographic abnormalities.
Puff DT; Pisano ED; Muller KE; Johnston RE; Hemminger BM; Burbeck CA; McLelland R; Pizer SM
J Digit Imaging; 1994 Nov; 7(4):161-71. PubMed ID: 7858011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Computer-aided diagnosis of masses with full-field digital mammography.
Li L; Clark RA; Thomas JA
Acad Radiol; 2002 Jan; 9(1):4-12. PubMed ID: 11918357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
