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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17985642)

  • 21. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers.
    Krupinski EA; Roehrig H; Dallas W; Fan J
    J Digit Imaging; 2005 Dec; 18(4):311-5. PubMed ID: 16142436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Noise equalization for detection of microcalcification clusters in direct digital mammogram images.
    McLoughlin KJ; Bones PJ; Karssemeijer N
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2004 Mar; 23(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 15027524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
    Uematsu T; Kasami M
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Discrimination tasks in simulated low-dose CT noise.
    Abbey CK; Samuelson FW; Zeng R; Boone JM; Myers KJ; Eckstein MP
    Med Phys; 2023 Jul; 50(7):4151-4172. PubMed ID: 37057360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Results of a survey on digital screening mammography: prevalence, efficiency, and use of ancillary diagnostic AIDS.
    Haygood TM; Whitman GJ; Atkinson EN; Nikolova RG; Sandoval SY; Dempsey PJ
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2008 Apr; 5(4):585-92. PubMed ID: 18359447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software.
    Paquerault S; Samuelson FW; Petrick N; Myers KJ; Smith RC
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Sep; 16(9):1095-107. PubMed ID: 19523855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography?
    Huda W; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR; Bertrand EA
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1355-66. PubMed ID: 17070453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
    Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
    Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise.
    Burgess AE; Jacobson FL; Judy PF
    Med Phys; 2001 Apr; 28(4):419-37. PubMed ID: 11339738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of MTF compensation.
    Krupinski EA; Johnson J; Roehrig H; Engstrom M; Fan J; Nafziger J; Lubin J; Dallas WJ
    Acad Radiol; 2003 Sep; 10(9):1030-5. PubMed ID: 13678092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Visibility of simulated microcalcifications--a hardcopy-based comparison of three mammographic systems.
    Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Whitman GJ; Johnston DA; Yang WT; Selinko V; Arribas E; Dogan B; Kappadath SC
    Med Phys; 2005 Jan; 32(1):182-94. PubMed ID: 15719969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system.
    Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Workman A; Yip M; Wells K; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
    Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.
    Chan HP; Helvie MA; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Adler DD; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Blane CE; Joynt LK; Wilson TE; Hadjiiski LM; Goodsitt MM
    Acad Radiol; 2001 Jun; 8(6):454-66. PubMed ID: 11394537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Investigation of optimal use of computer-aided detection systems: the role of the "machine" in decision making process.
    Paquerault S; Hardy PT; Wersto N; Chen J; Smith RC
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Sep; 17(9):1112-21. PubMed ID: 20605489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Intrareader variability in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance amongst experienced radiologists in Australia.
    Pitman AG; Tan SY; Ong AH; Gledhill S; Tauro P; Lemish W; Waugh J; Padmanabhan M; Lui B; Hennessy O; Styles C; Pun E
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2011 Jun; 55(3):245-51. PubMed ID: 21696556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Investigation of psychophysical similarity measures for selection of similar images in the diagnosis of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms.
    Muramatsu C; Li Q; Schmidt R; Shiraishi J; Doi K
    Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5695-702. PubMed ID: 19175126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.
    Schueller G; Riedl CC; Mallek R; Eibenberger K; Langenberger H; Kaindl E; Kulinna-Cosentini C; Rudas M; Helbich TH
    Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):487-96. PubMed ID: 17890036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.