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 *

209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18975714)

  • 1. Characterizing anatomical variability in breast CT images.
    Metheany KG; Abbey CK; Packard N; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2008 Oct; 35(10):4685-94. PubMed ID: 18975714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparison of power spectra for tomosynthesis projections and reconstructed images.
    Engstrom E; Reiser I; Nishikawa R
    Med Phys; 2009 May; 36(5):1753-8. PubMed ID: 19544793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of slice thickness on detectability in breast CT using a prewhitened matched filter and simulated mass lesions.
    Packard NJ; Abbey CK; Yang K; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2012 Apr; 39(4):1818-30. PubMed ID: 22482604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A minimum spanning forest based classification method for dedicated breast CT images.
    Pike R; Sechopoulos I; Fei B
    Med Phys; 2015 Nov; 42(11):6190-202. PubMed ID: 26520712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Updated breast CT dose coefficients (DgN
    Hernandez AM; Becker AE; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2019 Mar; 46(3):1455-1466. PubMed ID: 30661250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Non-Gaussian statistical properties of breast images.
    Abbey CK; Nosrateih A; Sohl-Dickstein J; Yang K; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2012 Nov; 39(11):7121-30. PubMed ID: 23127103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Breast dose in mammography is about 30% lower when realistic heterogeneous glandular distributions are considered.
    Hernandez AM; Seibert JA; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2015 Nov; 42(11):6337-48. PubMed ID: 26520725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Dedicated breast CT: fibroglandular volume measurements in a diagnostic population.
    Vedantham S; Shi L; Karellas A; O'Connell AM
    Med Phys; 2012 Dec; 39(12):7317-28. PubMed ID: 23231281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part I. Single-energy imaging.
    Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Muller S; Ebrahimi M; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051910. PubMed ID: 23635280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images.
    Reiser I; Nishikawa RM; Giger ML; Wu T; Rafferty EA; Moore R; Kopans DB
    Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):482-91. PubMed ID: 16532956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part II. Dual-energy imaging.
    Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Saab-Puong S; Iordache R; Muller S; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081907. PubMed ID: 23927321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Simulated lesion, human observer performance comparison between thin-section dedicated breast CT images versus computed thick-section simulated projection images of the breast.
    Chen L; Boone JM; Abbey CK; Hargreaves J; Bateni C; Lindfors KK; Yang K; Nosratieh A; Hernandez A; Gazi P
    Phys Med Biol; 2015 Apr; 60(8):3347-58. PubMed ID: 25825980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quantitative imaging in breast tomosynthesis and CT: comparison of detection and estimation task performance.
    Richard S; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2010 Jun; 37(6):2627-37. PubMed ID: 20632574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Simulation of 3D objects into breast tomosynthesis images.
    Shaheen E; Zanca F; Sisini F; Zhang G; Jacobs J; Bosmans H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):108-12. PubMed ID: 20207750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Automated detection of mass lesions in dedicated breast CT: a preliminary study.
    Reiser I; Nishikawa RM; Giger ML; Boone JM; Lindfors KK; Yang K
    Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):866-73. PubMed ID: 22320796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A method to test the reproducibility and to improve performance of computer-aided detection schemes for digitized mammograms.
    Zheng B; Gur D; Good WF; Hardesty LA
    Med Phys; 2004 Nov; 31(11):2964-72. PubMed ID: 15587648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.