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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20162439)

  • 1. Perceived sufficiency of full-field digital mammograms with and without irreversible image data compression for comparison with next-year mammograms.
    Destounis S; Somerville P; Murphy P; Seifert P
    J Digit Imaging; 2011 Feb; 24(1):66-74. PubMed ID: 20162439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Region-based wavelet coding methods for digital mammography.
    Penedo M; Pearlman WA; Tahoces PG; Souto M; Vidal JJ
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2003 Oct; 22(10):1288-96. PubMed ID: 14552582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of different compression techniques on diagnostic accuracies of breast masses on digitized mammograms.
    Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yang Y; Rong D; Yao X; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Sep; 49(7):747-51. PubMed ID: 18608020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Visually lossless threshold determination for microcalcification detection in wavelet compressed mammograms.
    Kocsis O; Costaridou L; Varaki L; Likaki E; Kalogeropoulou C; Skiadopoulos S; Panayiotakis G
    Eur Radiol; 2003 Oct; 13(10):2390-6. PubMed ID: 14534807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quantitative visually lossless compression ratio determination of JPEG2000 in digitized mammograms.
    Georgiev VT; Karahaliou AN; Skiadopoulos SG; Arikidis NS; Kazantzi AD; Panayiotakis GS; Costaridou LI
    J Digit Imaging; 2013 Jun; 26(3):427-39. PubMed ID: 23065144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of lossy data compression in primary interpretation for full-field digital mammography.
    Kovacs MD; Reicher JJ; Grotts JF; Reicher MA; Trambert MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Mar; 204(3):570-5. PubMed ID: 25714287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. High-performance wavelet compression for mammography: localization response operating characteristic evaluation.
    Kallergi M; Lucier BJ; Berman CG; Hersh MR; Kim JJ; Szabunio MS; Clark RA
    Radiology; 2006 Jan; 238(1):62-73. PubMed ID: 16373759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Acceptable compression ratio of full-field digital mammography using JPEG 2000.
    Kang BJ; Kim HS; Park CS; Choi JJ; Lee JH; Choi BG
    Clin Radiol; 2011 Jul; 66(7):609-13. PubMed ID: 21450282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Wavelet compression and segmentation of digital mammograms.
    Lucier BJ; Kallergi M; Qian W; DeVore RA; Clark RA; Saff EB; Clarke LP
    J Digit Imaging; 1994 Feb; 7(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 8172976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.
    Obenauer S; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Munzel U; Baum F; Grabbe E
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Jul; 12(7):1697-702. PubMed ID: 12111060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Use of Full-quality DICOM Images Compared to Minimally Compressed Mammograms in JPEG Format for Radiology Training: A Study From Radiologist and Radiographer Perspectives.
    Trieu PDY; Barron M; Lewis SJ
    Acad Radiol; 2023 Aug; 30(8):1748-1755. PubMed ID: 36567143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Irreversible JPEG 2000 compression of abdominal CT for primary interpretation: assessment of visually lossless threshold.
    Lee KH; Kim YH; Kim BH; Kim KJ; Kim TJ; Kim HJ; Hahn S
    Eur Radiol; 2007 Jun; 17(6):1529-34. PubMed ID: 17119972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.
    Nishikawa RM; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Marques HS; D'Orsi CJ; Farria DM; Kanal KM; Mahoney MC; Rebner M; Staiger MJ;
    Radiology; 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 19332845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of image compression and scaling on automated scoring of immunohistochemical stainings and segmentation of tumor epithelium.
    Konsti J; Lundin M; Linder N; Haglund C; Blomqvist C; Nevanlinna H; Aaltonen K; Nordling S; Lundin J
    Diagn Pathol; 2012 Mar; 7():29. PubMed ID: 22436596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammography image quality and evidence based practice: Analysis of the demonstration of the inframammary angle in the digital setting.
    Spuur K; Webb J; Poulos A; Nielsen S; Robinson W
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Mar; 100():76-84. PubMed ID: 29496083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Full-field digital mammographic interpretation with prior analog versus prior digitized analog mammography: time for interpretation.
    Garg AS; Rapelyea JA; Rechtman LR; Torrente J; Bittner RB; Coffey CM; Brem RF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jun; 196(6):1436-8. PubMed ID: 21606310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Kim WH; Chang JM; Koo HR; Seo M; Bae MS; Lee J; Moon WK
    Acta Radiol; 2017 Feb; 58(2):148-155. PubMed ID: 27178032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography.
    Morel JC; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Peacock C; Evans DR; Rahim R; Goligher J; Michell MJ
    Clin Radiol; 2014 Nov; 69(11):1112-6. PubMed ID: 25100302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.