96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15933149)
1. Threshold pixel size for shape determination of microcalcifications in digital mammography: a pilot study.
Ruschin M; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Börjesson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Grahn A; Tingberg A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):415-23. PubMed ID: 15933149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.
Uematsu T; Kasami M; Uchida Y
Acta Radiol; 2007 Sep; 48(7):714-20. PubMed ID: 17729000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Advantages of magnification in digital phase-contrast mammography using a practical X-ray tube.
Honda C; Ohara H
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Dec; 68(3 Suppl):S69-72. PubMed ID: 18584984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Detection of clustered microcalcifications in small field digital mammography.
Arodź T; Kurdziel M; Popiela TJ; Sevre EO; Yuen DA
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2006 Jan; 81(1):56-65. PubMed ID: 16310282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. New CR system with pixel size of 50 microm for digital mammography: physical imaging properties and detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Ideguchi T; Higashida Y; Kawaji Y; Sasaki M; Zaizen M; Shibayama R; Nakamura Y; Koyanagi K; Ikeda H; Ohki M; Toyofuku F; Muranaka T
Radiat Med; 2004; 22(4):218-24. PubMed ID: 15468941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Sechopoulos I; D'Orsi CJ
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):130-7. PubMed ID: 17522348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Segmentation for the enhancement of microcalcifications in digital mammograms.
Milosevic M; Jankovic D; Peulic A
Technol Health Care; 2014; 22(5):701-15. PubMed ID: 25059254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Adler DD; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Blane CE; Joynt LK; Wilson TE; Hadjiiski LM; Goodsitt MM
Acad Radiol; 2001 Jun; 8(6):454-66. PubMed ID: 11394537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Improvement of detectability of microcalcifications by magnification digital mammography].
Higashida Y; Hatemura M; Yoshida A; Takada T; Takahashi M
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Aug; 58(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 9778932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
Uematsu T; Kasami M
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Microcalcification detection using cone-beam CT mammography with a flat-panel imager.
Gong X; Vedula AA; Glick SJ
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Jun; 49(11):2183-95. PubMed ID: 15248571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Determining air kerma from pixel values in digital mammography.
Toroi P; Nieminen MT; Tenkanen-Rautakoski P; Varjonen M
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jun; 54(12):3865-79. PubMed ID: 19491454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Digital storage phosphor mammography in a magnification technic: experimental studies for spatial resolution and for detection of microcalcifications].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Hundertmark C; Sachs J; Gruhl T; Sperner W; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1997 Aug; 167(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 9333359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A novel approach for detection and classification of mammographic microcalcifications using wavelet analysis and extreme learning machine.
Malar E; Kandaswamy A; Chakravarthy D; Giri Dharan A
Comput Biol Med; 2012 Sep; 42(9):898-905. PubMed ID: 22871899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Visibility of microcalcifications in computed and screen-film mammography.
Cowen AR; Launders JH; Jadav M; Brettle DS
Phys Med Biol; 1997 Aug; 42(8):1533-48. PubMed ID: 9279904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Introducing DeBRa: a detailed breast model for radiological studies.
Ma AK; Gunn S; Darambara DG
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jul; 54(14):4533-45. PubMed ID: 19556683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [X-ray phase imaging using a X-ray tube with a small focal spot -improvement of image quality in mammography-].
Honda C; Ohara H; Ishisaka A; Shimada F; Endo T
Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 12766293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
