123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16373759)
1. High-performance wavelet compression for mammography: localization response operating characteristic evaluation.
Kallergi M; Lucier BJ; Berman CG; Hersh MR; Kim JJ; Szabunio MS; Clark RA
Radiology; 2006 Jan; 238(1):62-73. PubMed ID: 16373759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of lossy JPEG2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees compression of digitized mammograms.
Penedo M; Souto M; Tahoces PG; Carreira JM; Villalón J; Porto G; Seoane C; Vidal JJ; Berbaum KS; Chakraborty DP; Fajardo LL
Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):450-7. PubMed ID: 16244253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effects of different compression techniques on diagnostic accuracies of breast masses on digitized mammograms.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yang Y; Rong D; Yao X; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Sep; 49(7):747-51. PubMed ID: 18608020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Improved interpretation of digitized mammography with wavelet processing: a localization response operating characteristic study.
Kallergi M; Heine JJ; Berman CG; Hersh MR; Romilly AP; Clark RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Mar; 182(3):697-703. PubMed ID: 14975972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Breast masses: computer-aided diagnosis with serial mammograms.
Hadjiiski L; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Chan HP; Roubidoux MA; Paramagul C; Blane C; Petrick N; Bailey J; Klein K; Foster M; Patterson SK; Adler D; Nees AV; Shen J
Radiology; 2006 Aug; 240(2):343-56. PubMed ID: 16801362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Clinical evaluation of wavelet-compressed digitized screen-film mammography.
Powell KA; Mallasch PG; Obuchowski NA; Kerczewski RJ; Ganobcik SN; Cardenosa G; Chilcote W
Acad Radiol; 2000 May; 7(5):311-6. PubMed ID: 10803610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Detection of simulated lesions on data-compressed digital mammograms.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Waldrop SM; D'Orsi CJ
Radiology; 2005 Jul; 236(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 15983071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Region-based wavelet coding methods for digital mammography.
Penedo M; Pearlman WA; Tahoces PG; Souto M; Vidal JJ
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2003 Oct; 22(10):1288-96. PubMed ID: 14552582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Quantitative visually lossless compression ratio determination of JPEG2000 in digitized mammograms.
Georgiev VT; Karahaliou AN; Skiadopoulos SG; Arikidis NS; Kazantzi AD; Panayiotakis GS; Costaridou LI
J Digit Imaging; 2013 Jun; 26(3):427-39. PubMed ID: 23065144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Interpretation of calcifications in screen/film, digitized, and wavelet-enhanced monitor-displayed mammograms: a receiver operating characteristic study.
Kallergi M; Clarke LP; Qian W; Gavrielides M; Venugopal P; Berman CG; Holman-Ferris SD; Miller MS; Clark RA
Acad Radiol; 1996 Apr; 3(4):285-93. PubMed ID: 8796676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Visually lossless threshold determination for microcalcification detection in wavelet compressed mammograms.
Kocsis O; Costaridou L; Varaki L; Likaki E; Kalogeropoulou C; Skiadopoulos S; Panayiotakis G
Eur Radiol; 2003 Oct; 13(10):2390-6. PubMed ID: 14534807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Wavelet compression and segmentation of digital mammograms.
Lucier BJ; Kallergi M; Qian W; DeVore RA; Clark RA; Saff EB; Clarke LP
J Digit Imaging; 1994 Feb; 7(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 8172976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Image compression in digital mammography: effects on computerized detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Lo SC; Niklason LT; Ikeda DM; Lam KL
Med Phys; 1996 Aug; 23(8):1325-36. PubMed ID: 8873029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Classification of breast lesions with multimodality computer-aided diagnosis: observer study results on an independent clinical data set.
Horsch K; Giger ML; Vyborny CJ; Lan L; Mendelson EB; Hendrick RE
Radiology; 2006 Aug; 240(2):357-68. PubMed ID: 16864666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Lossy three-dimensional JPEG2000 compression of abdominal CT images: assessment of the visually lossless threshold and effect of compression ratio on image quality.
Ringl H; Schernthaner RE; Kulinna-Cosentini C; Weber M; Schaefer-Prokop C; Herold CJ; Schima W
Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):467-74. PubMed ID: 17890355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Integrated wavelets for enhancement of microcalcifications in digital mammography.
Heinlein P; Drexl J; Schneider W
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2003 Mar; 22(3):402-13. PubMed ID: 12760557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of CRT monitor display for personal computer in the detection of small lung nodules: with particular emphasis on comparison between JPEG and wavelet compression].
Kihara Y
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 2001 Apr; 61(5):231-7. PubMed ID: 11398347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance.
Cole EB; Pisano ED; Zeng D; Muller K; Aylward SR; Park S; Kuzmiak C; Koomen M; Pavic D; Walsh R; Baker J; Gimenez EI; Freimanis R
Acad Radiol; 2005 May; 12(5):585-95. PubMed ID: 15866131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
