256 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19378737)
1. 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]
2. Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Jacobs J; Oyen R; Bosmans H
Br J Radiol; 2012 Dec; 85(1020):e1233-41. PubMed ID: 22844032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Michielsen K; Cockmartin L; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 43(9):5104. PubMed ID: 27587041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A quantitative method for evaluating the detectability of lesions in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):214-8. PubMed ID: 18319282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Chakraborty DP; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6):3202-13. PubMed ID: 22755704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms.
Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Real and simulated clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms. ROC study of observer performance.
Lado MJ; Tahoces PG; Souto M; Méndez AJ; Vidal JJ
Med Phys; 1997 Sep; 24(9):1385-94. PubMed ID: 9304566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of image processing on the detection of cancers in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Halling-Brown MD; Mackenzie A; Chakraborty DP; Bosmans H; Dance DR; Young KC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Aug; 203(2):387-93. PubMed ID: 25055275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Computer aided detection of clusters of microcalcifications on full field digital mammograms.
Ge J; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Chan HP; Wei J; Helvie MA; Zhou C
Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):2975-88. PubMed ID: 16964876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of lossy JPEG2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees compression of digitized mammograms.
Penedo M; Souto M; Tahoces PG; Carreira JM; Villalón J; Porto G; Seoane C; Vidal JJ; Berbaum KS; Chakraborty DP; Fajardo LL
Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):450-7. PubMed ID: 16244253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance.
Cole EB; Pisano ED; Zeng D; Muller K; Aylward SR; Park S; Kuzmiak C; Koomen M; Pavic D; Walsh R; Baker J; Gimenez EI; Freimanis R
Acad Radiol; 2005 May; 12(5):585-95. PubMed ID: 15866131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Vyborny CJ; MacMahon H; Metz CE; Doi K; Sickles EA
Invest Radiol; 1987 Jul; 22(7):581-9. PubMed ID: 3623862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography.
Uematsu T
Jpn J Radiol; 2009 May; 27(4):168-75. PubMed ID: 19499307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of computer-aided detection techniques and signal characteristics for clustered microcalcifications on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Samala RK; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Helvie MA
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Oct; 61(19):7092-7112. PubMed ID: 27648708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Detection of clustered microcalcifications in small field digital mammography.
Arodź T; Kurdziel M; Popiela TJ; Sevre EO; Yuen DA
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2006 Jan; 81(1):56-65. PubMed ID: 16310282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Improved microcalcification visualization using dual-energy digital mammography.
Tsai CJ; Chen RC; Peng HL; Hsu WL; Lee JJ
Acta Radiol; 2013 Jul; 54(6):614-21. PubMed ID: 23528569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of a wavelet-based computer-assisted detection system for identifying microcalcifications in digital full-field mammography.
Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Bollow M; Hermann KG; Richter K; Heinlein P; Schneider W; Hamm B
Acta Radiol; 2004 Apr; 45(2):136-41. PubMed ID: 15191095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
