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 *

73 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]
    of 4.