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 *

91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1921565)

  • 1. Extraction of quantitative blur measures for circumscribed lesions in mammograms.
    Richter JH; Claridge E
    Med Inform (Lond); 1991; 16(2):229-40. PubMed ID: 1921565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of computer-aided diagnosis on a large clinical full-field digital mammographic dataset.
    Li H; Giger ML; Yuan Y; Chen W; Horsch K; Lan L; Jamieson AR; Sennett CA; Jansen SA
    Acad Radiol; 2008 Nov; 15(11):1437-45. PubMed ID: 18995194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quantitative comparison of clustered microcalcifications in for-presentation and for-processing mammograms in full-field digital mammography.
    Wang J; Nishikawa RM; Yang Y
    Med Phys; 2017 Jul; 44(7):3726-3738. PubMed ID: 28477395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Use of volumetric features for temporal comparison of mass lesions in full field digital mammograms.
    Bozek J; Kallenberg M; Grgic M; Karssemeijer N
    Med Phys; 2014 Feb; 41(2):021902. PubMed ID: 24506623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Determination of similarity measures for pairs of mass lesions on mammograms by use of BI-RADS lesion descriptors and image features.
    Muramatsu C; Li Q; Schmidt RA; Shiraishi J; Doi K
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Apr; 16(4):443-9. PubMed ID: 19268856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Application of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system to digitalized mammograms for identifying microcalcifications].
    Bazzocchi M; Facecchia I; Zuiani C; Londero V; Smania S; Bottigli U; Delogu P
    Radiol Med; 2001 May; 101(5):334-40. PubMed ID: 11438784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Study of mass segmentation algorithm for digital mammograms].
    Chen L; Zhang K; Jin Z
    Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi; 2008 Dec; 25(6):1282-4. PubMed ID: 19166192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns.
    Al Mousa DS; Brennan PC; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Tan J; Mello-Thoms C
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1386-93. PubMed ID: 25172414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Efficacy of step-oblique mammography for confirmation and localization of densities seen on only one standard mammographic view.
    Pearson KL; Sickles EA; Frankel SD; Leung JW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Mar; 174(3):745-52. PubMed ID: 10701619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Analysis of spiculation in the computerized classification of mammographic masses.
    Huo Z; Giger ML; Vyborny CJ; Bick U; Lu P; Wolverton DE; Schmidt RA
    Med Phys; 1995 Oct; 22(10):1569-79. PubMed ID: 8551981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Non-linear polynomial filters for edge enhancement of mammogram lesions.
    Bhateja V; Misra M; Urooj S
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2016 Jun; 129():125-34. PubMed ID: 26831271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A dual-stage method for lesion segmentation on digital mammograms.
    Yuan Y; Giger ML; Li H; Suzuki K; Sennett C
    Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4180-93. PubMed ID: 18072482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Radiomics based detection and characterization of suspicious lesions on full field digital mammograms.
    Sapate SG; Mahajan A; Talbar SN; Sable N; Desai S; Thakur M
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2018 Sep; 163():1-20. PubMed ID: 30119844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Mammographic texture synthesis: second-generation clustered lumpy backgrounds using a genetic algorithm.
    Castella C; Kinkel K; Descombes F; Eckstein MP; Sottas PE; Verdun FR; Bochud FO
    Opt Express; 2008 May; 16(11):7595-607. PubMed ID: 18545466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Breast image pre-processing for mammographic tissue segmentation.
    He W; Hogg P; Juette A; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
    Comput Biol Med; 2015 Dec; 67():61-73. PubMed ID: 26498046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mammography segmentation with maximum likelihood active contours.
    Rahmati P; Adler A; Hamarneh G
    Med Image Anal; 2012 Aug; 16(6):1167-86. PubMed ID: 22831774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Quantitative measures confirm the inverse relationship between lesion spiculation and detection of breast masses.
    Rawashdeh MA; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Borecky N; Brennan PC
    Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):576-80. PubMed ID: 23477828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Computer aided detection of microcalcifications in digital mammograms.
    Boccignone G; Chianese A; Picariello A
    Comput Biol Med; 2000 Sep; 30(5):267-86. PubMed ID: 10913773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.