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 *

232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17671343)

  • 41. Automated effect-specific mammographic pattern measures.
    Raundahl J; Loog M; Pettersen P; Tanko LB; Nielsen M
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2008 Aug; 27(8):1054-60. PubMed ID: 18672423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Quantitative evaluation of breast density using a dual-energy technique on a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
    Lu KM; Yeh DM; Cao BH; Lin CY; Liang CY; Zhou YB; Tsai CJ
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2019 Jun; 20(6):170-177. PubMed ID: 31106990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Variability of breast density assessment in short-term reimaging with digital mammography.
    Kim WH; Moon WK; Kim SM; Yi A; Chang JM; Koo HR; Lee SH; Cho N
    Eur J Radiol; 2013 Oct; 82(10):1724-30. PubMed ID: 23727379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. X-ray scattering in full-field digital mammography.
    Nykänen K; Siltanen S
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1864-73. PubMed ID: 12906205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography.
    Feig SA; Yaffe MJ
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1205-30. PubMed ID: 7480666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data.
    Vachon CM; Fowler EE; Tiffenberg G; Scott CG; Pankratz VS; Sellers TA; Heine JJ
    Breast Cancer Res; 2013 Jan; 15(1):R1. PubMed ID: 23289950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. I. Breast tissue model and image acquisition simulation.
    Bakic PR; Albert M; Brzakovic D; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2002 Sep; 29(9):2131-9. PubMed ID: 12349935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammogram using multiscale curvelet transform.
    Eltoukhy MM; Faye I; Samir BB
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2010 Jun; 34(4):269-76. PubMed ID: 20004076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. A statistical approach for breast density segmentation.
    Oliver A; Lladó X; Pérez E; Pont J; Denton ER; Freixenet J; Martí J
    J Digit Imaging; 2010 Oct; 23(5):527-37. PubMed ID: 19506953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Computerized nipple identification for multiple image analysis in computer-aided diagnosis.
    Zhou C; Chan HP; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Petrick N
    Med Phys; 2004 Oct; 31(10):2871-82. PubMed ID: 15543797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. A comparative study of computer assisted assessment of image quality index for mammographic phantom images.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Villaescusa JI; Campayo JM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 116(1-4 Pt 2):620-3. PubMed ID: 16604712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Incomplete skin representation in digital mammograms.
    Burgess AE; Kang H
    Med Phys; 2004 Oct; 31(10):2834-8. PubMed ID: 15543791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. On the noise variance of a digital mammography system.
    Burgess A
    Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):1987-95. PubMed ID: 15305451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Evaluation of dual-energy subtraction of digital mammography images under conditions found in a commercial unit.
    Brandan ME; Ramírez-R V
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(9):2307-20. PubMed ID: 16625044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: first application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women.
    Baek JE; Kang BJ; Kim SH; Lee HS
    World J Surg Oncol; 2017 Feb; 15(1):38. PubMed ID: 28153022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. [Digital breast tomosynthesis].
    Preibsch H; Siegmann-Luz KC
    Radiologe; 2015 Jan; 55(1):59-67; quiz 68-70. PubMed ID: 25609581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. A new validation method for X-ray mammogram registration algorithms using a projection model of breast X-ray compression.
    Hipwell JH; Tanner C; Crum WR; Schnabel JA; Hawkes DJ
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2007 Sep; 26(9):1190-200. PubMed ID: 17896592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.