133 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]
