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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17879801)

  • 21. Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic backgrounds.
    Reiser I; Nishikawa RM
    Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):2905-11. PubMed ID: 16964867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Detection of breast cancer by soft-copy reading of digital mammograms: comparison between a routine image-processing parameter and high-contrast parameters.
    Kamitani T; Yabuuchi H; Soeda H; Matsuo Y; Okafuji T; Sakai S; Setoguchi T; Hatakenaka M; Ishii N; Honda H
    Acta Radiol; 2010 Feb; 51(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 19922328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
    Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
    Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance.
    Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM; Johnson JP; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2007 Oct; 34(10):3971-81. PubMed ID: 17985642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance.
    Samei E; Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM
    Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):396-404. PubMed ID: 17356178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. A model-based framework for the detection of spiculated masses on mammography.
    Sampat MP; Bovik AC; Whitman GJ; Markey MK
    Med Phys; 2008 May; 35(5):2110-23. PubMed ID: 18561687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms.
    Hemminger BM; Dillon AW; Johnston RE; Muller KE; Deluca MC; Coffey CS; Pisano ED
    Med Phys; 1999 Nov; 26(11):2266-72. PubMed ID: 10587207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.
    Gur D; Abrams GS; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Perrin RL; Rathfon GY; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Bandos AI
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):586-91. PubMed ID: 19620460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings.
    Zheng B; Ganott MA; Britton CA; Hakim CM; Hardesty LA; Chang TS; Rockette HE; Gur D
    Radiology; 2001 Dec; 221(3):633-40. PubMed ID: 11719657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Incorporation of a Laguerre-Gauss channelized Hotelling observer for false-positive reduction in a mammographic mass CAD system.
    Baydush AH; Catarious DM; Lo JY; Floyd CE
    J Digit Imaging; 2007 Jun; 20(2):196-202. PubMed ID: 17505872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The influence of increased ambient lighting on mass detection in mammograms.
    Pollard BJ; Samei E; Chawla AS; Baker J; Ghate S; Kim C; Soo MS; Hashimoto N
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Mar; 16(3):299-304. PubMed ID: 19201358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. An observer study for a computer-aided reading protocol (CARP) in the screening environment for digital mammography.
    Moin P; Deshpande R; Sayre J; Messer E; Gupte S; Romsdahl H; Hasegawa A; Liu BJ
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Nov; 18(11):1420-9. PubMed ID: 21971259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Objective assessment of low contrast detectability in computed tomography with Channelized Hotelling Observer.
    Racine D; Ba AH; Ott JG; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med; 2016 Jan; 32(1):76-83. PubMed ID: 26515665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Validation of a digital mammographic unit model for an objective and highly automated clinical image quality assessment.
    Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
    Med Eng Phys; 2013 Aug; 35(8):1089-96; discussion 1089. PubMed ID: 23207102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparative analysis of breast cancer detection in mammograms and thermograms.
    Milosevic M; Jankovic D; Peulic A
    Biomed Tech (Berl); 2015 Feb; 60(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 25720034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. ROC study of the effect of stereoscopic imaging on assessment of breast lesions.
    Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski LM; Lydick JT; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Nees A; Blane CE; Sahiner B
    Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1001-9. PubMed ID: 15895583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.
    Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Celis V; Geniets C; Provost V; Pauwels H; Marchal G; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):765-75. PubMed ID: 19378737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Evaluation of internal noise methods for Hotelling observer models.
    Zhang Y; Pham BT; Eckstein MP
    Med Phys; 2007 Aug; 34(8):3312-22. PubMed ID: 17879795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.