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)

  • 21. Normalization of local contrast in mammograms.
    Veldkamp WJ; Karssemeijer N
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2000 Jul; 19(7):731-8. PubMed ID: 11055788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography: sensitivity and reproducibility in serial examinations.
    Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Cha JH; Kim SM; Im JG
    Radiology; 2008 Jan; 246(1):71-80. PubMed ID: 18096530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Detection of masses in mammograms via statistically based enhancement, multilevel-thresholding segmentation, and region selection.
    Rojas Domínguez A; Nandi AK
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2008 Jun; 32(4):304-15. PubMed ID: 18358699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Parameter optimization of a computer-aided diagnosis system for detection of masses on digitized mammograms.
    Radovic M; Milosevic M; Ninkovic S; Filipovic N; Peulic A
    Technol Health Care; 2015; 23(6):757-74. PubMed ID: 26409521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Computerized identification of suspicious regions for masses in digitized mammograms.
    Chang YH; Zheng B; Gur D
    Invest Radiol; 1996 Mar; 31(3):146-53. PubMed ID: 8675422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Mass detection in digitized mammograms using two independent computer-assisted diagnosis schemes.
    Zheng B; Chang YH; Gur D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Dec; 167(6):1421-4. PubMed ID: 8956570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Automated detection of masses in mammograms by local adaptive thresholding.
    Kom G; Tiedeu A; Kom M
    Comput Biol Med; 2007 Jan; 37(1):37-48. PubMed ID: 16487954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Development of an automated method for detecting mammographic masses with a partial loss of region.
    Hatanaka Y; Hara T; Fujita H; Kasai S; Endo T; Iwase T
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1209-14. PubMed ID: 11811821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Contrast enhancement in dense breast images to aid clustered microcalcifications detection.
    Nunes FL; Schiabel H; Goes CE
    J Digit Imaging; 2007 Mar; 20(1):53-66. PubMed ID: 16820957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A concentric morphology model for the detection of masses in mammography.
    Eltonsy NH; Tourassi GD; Elmaghraby AS
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2007 Jun; 26(6):880-9. PubMed ID: 17679338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.
    Yang SK; Moon WK; Cho N; Park JS; Cha JH; Kim SM; Kim SJ; Im JG
    Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 17507722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Computer-aided detection schemes: the effect of limiting the number of cued regions in each case.
    Zheng B; Leader JK; Abrams G; Shindel B; Catullo V; Good WF; Gur D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Mar; 182(3):579-83. PubMed ID: 14975949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Computerized detection of breast masses in digitized mammograms.
    Varela C; Tahoces PG; Méndez AJ; Souto M; Vidal JJ
    Comput Biol Med; 2007 Feb; 37(2):214-26. PubMed ID: 16620805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Contrast enhancement in dense breast images using the modulation transfer function.
    Nunes FL; Schiabel H; Benatti RH
    Med Phys; 2002 Dec; 29(12):2925-36. PubMed ID: 12512729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer.
    Brem RF; Hoffmeister JW; Rapelyea JA; Zisman G; Mohtashemi K; Jindal G; Disimio MP; Rogers SK
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Feb; 184(2):439-44. PubMed ID: 15671360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Emerging technologies in breast cancer detection.
    Smith AP; Hall PA; Marcello DM
    Radiol Manage; 2004; 26(4):16-24; quiz 25-7. PubMed ID: 15377106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.
    Yang WT; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Murphy WA; Dryden MJ; Kushwaha AC; Sahin AA; Johnston D; Dempsey PJ; Shaw CC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):W576-81. PubMed ID: 17114508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Optimal filter-based detection of microcalcifications.
    Gulsrud TO; Husøy JH
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2001 Nov; 48(11):1272-81. PubMed ID: 11686626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Digital mammography is very useful in mass screening of breast cancer].
    Nab HW; Karssemeijer N; van Erning LJ; Verbeek AL; Hendriks JH
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1990 Dec; 134(49):2383-7. PubMed ID: 2263263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.