123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16373759)
21. Perceived sufficiency of full-field digital mammograms with and without irreversible image data compression for comparison with next-year mammograms.
Destounis S; Somerville P; Murphy P; Seifert P
J Digit Imaging; 2011 Feb; 24(1):66-74. PubMed ID: 20162439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Applying computer-assisted detection schemes to digitized mammograms after JPEG data compression: an assessment.
Zheng B; Sumkin JH; Good WF; Maitz GS; Chang YH; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2000 Aug; 7(8):595-602. PubMed ID: 10952109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Evaluation of lossy data compression in primary interpretation for full-field digital mammography.
Kovacs MD; Reicher JJ; Grotts JF; Reicher MA; Trambert MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Mar; 204(3):570-5. PubMed ID: 25714287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Film-screen versus digitized mammography: assessment of clinical equivalence.
Powell KA; Obuchowski NA; Chilcote WA; Barry MM; Ganobcik SN; Cardenosa G
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Oct; 173(4):889-94. PubMed ID: 10511142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.
Pisano ED; Cole EB; Kistner EO; Muller KE; Hemminger BM; Brown ML; Johnston RE; Kuzmiak CM; Braeuning MP; Freimanis RI; Soo MS; Baker JA; Walsh R
Radiology; 2002 May; 223(2):483-8. PubMed ID: 11997557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Detecting clustered microcalcifications in the female breast: secondary digitized images versus mammograms.
De Maeseneer M; Beeckman P; Osteaux M; Mattheus R; Hoste M; Bastaerts Y; Jong B
J Belge Radiol; 1992 Jun; 75(3):173-8. PubMed ID: 1400145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Prediction of perceptible artifacts in JPEG 2000-compressed chest CT images using mathematical and perceptual quality metrics.
Kim B; Lee KH; Kim KJ; Mantiuk R; Hahn S; Kim TJ; Kim YH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Feb; 190(2):328-34. PubMed ID: 18212217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Improvement of sensitivity of breast cancer diagnosis with adaptive neighborhood contrast enhancement of mammograms.
Rangayyan RM; Shen L; Shen Y; Desautels JE; Bryant H; Terry TJ; Horeczko N; Rose MS
IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 1997 Sep; 1(3):161-70. PubMed ID: 11020818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Computer-aided detection system for breast masses on digital tomosynthesis mammograms: preliminary experience.
Chan HP; Wei J; Sahiner B; Rafferty EA; Wu T; Roubidoux MA; Moore RH; Kopans DB; Hadjiiski LM; Helvie MA
Radiology; 2005 Dec; 237(3):1075-80. PubMed ID: 16237141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Bayesian network to predict breast cancer risk of mammographic microcalcifications and reduce number of benign biopsy results: initial experience.
Burnside ES; Rubin DL; Fine JP; Shachter RD; Sisney GA; Leung WK
Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):666-73. PubMed ID: 16926323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Optimization of wavelet decomposition for image compression and feature preservation.
Lo SC; Li H; Freedman MT
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2003 Sep; 22(9):1141-51. PubMed ID: 12956269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Improvement in radiologists' characterization of malignant and benign breast masses on serial mammograms with computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study.
Hadjiiski L; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Blane C; Paramagul C; Petrick N; Bailey J; Klein K; Foster M; Patterson S; Adler D; Nees A; Shen J
Radiology; 2004 Oct; 233(1):255-65. PubMed ID: 15317954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Effect of CT image compression on computer-assisted lung nodule volume measurement.
Ko JP; Chang J; Bomsztyk E; Babb JS; Naidich DP; Rusinek H
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):83-8. PubMed ID: 16126923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Diagnosis of breast calcifications: comparison of contact, magnified, and television-enhanced images.
Kimme-Smith C; Gold RH; Bassett LW; Gormley L; Morioka C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Nov; 153(5):963-7. PubMed ID: 2801445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Application of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system to digitalized mammograms for identifying microcalcifications].
Bazzocchi M; Facecchia I; Zuiani C; Londero V; Smania S; Bottigli U; Delogu P
Radiol Med; 2001 May; 101(5):334-40. PubMed ID: 11438784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Detection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study.
Good WF; Sumkin JH; Ganott M; Hardesty L; Holbert B; Johns CM; Klym AH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Dec; 175(6):1573-6. PubMed ID: 11090378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Application of artificial neural networks in computer-aided diagnosis.
Liu B
Methods Mol Biol; 2015; 1260():195-204. PubMed ID: 25502383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Computerized texture analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns of digitized mammograms.
Li H; Giger ML; Olopade OI; Margolis A; Lan L; Chinander MR
Acad Radiol; 2005 Jul; 12(7):863-73. PubMed ID: 16039540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Multi-scaled morphological features for the characterization of mammographic masses using statistical classification schemes.
Georgiou H; Mavroforakis M; Dimitropoulos N; Cavouras D; Theodoridis S
Artif Intell Med; 2007 Sep; 41(1):39-55. PubMed ID: 17714924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
