76 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12105730)
1. 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]
2. Performance and reproducibility of a computerized mass detection scheme for digitized mammography using rotated and resampled images: an assessment.
Zheng B; Maitz GS; Ganott MA; Abrams G; Leader JK; Gur D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jul; 185(1):194-8. PubMed ID: 15972422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Combined adaptive enhancement and region-growing segmentation of breast masses on digitized mammograms.
Petrick N; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA
Med Phys; 1999 Aug; 26(8):1642-54. PubMed ID: 10501064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Computer-aided detection systems for breast masses: comparison of performances on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms.
Wei J; Hadjiiski LM; Sahiner B; Chan HP; Ge J; Roubidoux MA; Helvie MA; Zhou C; Wu YT; Paramagul C; Zhang Y
Acad Radiol; 2007 Jun; 14(6):659-69. PubMed ID: 17502255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Automated detection of breast masses on mammograms using adaptive contrast enhancement and texture classification.
Petrick N; Chan HP; Wei D; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Adler DD
Med Phys; 1996 Oct; 23(10):1685-96. PubMed ID: 8946366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of microcalcifications segmentation techniques for dense breast digitized images.
Góes CE; Schiabel H; Nunes FL
J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():231-3. PubMed ID: 12105737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms.
Zhou C; Chan HP; Petrick N; Helvie MA; Goodsitt MM; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM
Med Phys; 2001 Jun; 28(6):1056-69. PubMed ID: 11439475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Computerized detection of masses in digitized mammograms using single-image segmentation and a multilayer topographic feature analysis.
Zheng B; Chang YH; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 1995 Nov; 2(11):959-66. PubMed ID: 9419667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comparison of two methods for the segmentation of masses in the digital mammograms.
Dubey RB; Hanmandlu M; Gupta SK
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2010 Apr; 34(3):185-91. PubMed ID: 19828291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Computer-aided breast cancer detection and diagnosis of masses using difference of Gaussians and derivative-based feature saliency.
Polakowski WE; Cournoyer DA; Rogers SK; DeSimio MP; Ruck DW; Hoffmeister JW; Raines RA
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1997 Dec; 16(6):811-9. PubMed ID: 9533581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: investigation of feature-analysis techniques.
Yin FF; Giger ML; Doi K; Vyborny CJ; Schmidt RA
J Digit Imaging; 1994 Feb; 7(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 8172975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Automated segmentation of digitized mammograms.
Bick U; Giger ML; Schmidt RA; Nishikawa RM; Wolverton DE; Doi K
Acad Radiol; 1995 Jan; 2(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 9419517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Robustness of computerized identification of masses in digitized mammograms. A preliminary assessment.
Chang YH; Zheng B; Gur D
Invest Radiol; 1996 Sep; 31(9):563-8. PubMed ID: 8877493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Computerized detection of masses from digitized mammograms: comparison of single-image segmentation and bilateral-image subtraction.
Zheng B; Chang YH; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 1995 Dec; 2(12):1056-61. PubMed ID: 9419682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
