112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12536094)
1. A digital equalisation technique improving visualisation of dense mammary gland and breast periphery in mammography.
Stefanoyiannis AP; Costaridou L; Skiadopoulos S; Panayiotakis G
Eur J Radiol; 2003 Feb; 45(2):139-49. PubMed ID: 12536094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A digital density equalization technique to improve visualization of breast periphery in mammography.
Stefanoyiannis AP; Costaridou L; Sakellaropoulos P; Panayiotakis G
Br J Radiol; 2000 Apr; 73(868):410-20. PubMed ID: 10844867
[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. Quantifying image quality at breast periphery vs mammary gland in mammography using wavelet analysis.
Costaridou L; Sakellaropoulos P; Stefanoyiannis AP; Ungureanu E; Panayiotakis G
Br J Radiol; 2001 Oct; 74(886):913-9. PubMed ID: 11675308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images.
Wei J; Chan HP; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Zhou C; Paquerault S; Chenevert T; Goodsitt MM
Med Phys; 2004 Apr; 31(4):933-42. PubMed ID: 15125012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A New Breast Border Extraction and Contrast Enhancement Technique with Digital Mammogram Images for Improved Detection of Breast Cancer.
Hazarika M; Mahanta LB
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2018 Aug; 19(8):2141-2148. PubMed ID: 30139217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Role of equalisation mammography of dense breasts.
Plewes DB; Sabol JM; Soutar I; Chevrier A; Shumak R
Med Biol Eng Comput; 1995 Mar; 33(2):167-73. PubMed ID: 7643655
[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. Breast image pre-processing for mammographic tissue segmentation.
He W; Hogg P; Juette A; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
Comput Biol Med; 2015 Dec; 67():61-73. PubMed ID: 26498046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Technique for preprocessing of digital mammogram.
Maitra IK; Nag S; Bandyopadhyay SK
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2012 Aug; 107(2):175-88. PubMed ID: 21669471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns.
Al Mousa DS; Brennan PC; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Tan J; Mello-Thoms C
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1386-93. PubMed ID: 25172414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast peripheral area correction in digital mammograms.
Tortajada M; Oliver A; Martí R; Ganau S; Tortajada L; Sentís M; Freixenet J; Zwiggelaar R
Comput Biol Med; 2014 Jul; 50():32-40. PubMed ID: 24845018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessment of a Four-View Mammographic Image Feature Based Fusion Model to Predict Near-Term Breast Cancer Risk.
Tan M; Pu J; Cheng S; Liu H; Zheng B
Ann Biomed Eng; 2015 Oct; 43(10):2416-28. PubMed ID: 25851469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of computer-aided diagnosis on a large clinical full-field digital mammographic dataset.
Li H; Giger ML; Yuan Y; Chen W; Horsch K; Lan L; Jamieson AR; Sennett CA; Jansen SA
Acad Radiol; 2008 Nov; 15(11):1437-45. PubMed ID: 18995194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Francescone MA; Jochelson MS; Dershaw DD; Sung JS; Hughes MC; Zheng J; Moskowitz C; Morris EA
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Aug; 83(8):1350-5. PubMed ID: 24932846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mass Detection in Mammographic Images Using Wavelet Processing and Adaptive Threshold Technique.
Vikhe PS; Thool VR
J Med Syst; 2016 Apr; 40(4):82. PubMed ID: 26811073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
