169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20175501)
1. Dynamic multiple thresholding breast boundary detection algorithm for mammograms.
Wu YT; Zhou C; Chan HP; Paramagul C; Hadjiiski LM; Daly CP; Douglas JA; Zhang Y; Sahiner B; Shi J; Wei J
Med Phys; 2010 Jan; 37(1):391-401. PubMed ID: 20175501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Computerized image analysis: texture-field orientation method for pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms.
Zhou C; Wei J; Chan HP; Paramagul C; Hadjiiski LM; Sahiner B; Douglas JA
Med Phys; 2010 May; 37(5):2289-99. PubMed ID: 20527563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Automated pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms: Comparison of deep neural network to conventional computer vision.
Ma X; Wei J; Zhou C; Helvie MA; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Lu Y
Med Phys; 2019 May; 46(5):2103-2114. PubMed ID: 30771257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computer-aided detection of breast masses on mammograms: dual system approach with two-view analysis.
Wei J; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Zhou C; Hadjiiski LM; Roubidoux MA; Helvie MA
Med Phys; 2009 Oct; 36(10):4451-60. PubMed ID: 19928076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Hybrid segmentation of mass in mammograms using template matching and dynamic programming.
Song E; Xu S; Xu X; Zeng J; Lan Y; Zhang S; Hung CC
Acad Radiol; 2010 Nov; 17(11):1414-24. PubMed ID: 20817575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An ellipse-fitting based method for efficient registration of breast masses on two mammographic views.
Pu J; Zheng B; Leader JK; Gur D
Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):487-94. PubMed ID: 18383669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An evaluation of contrast enhancement techniques for mammographic breast masses.
Singh S; Bovis K
IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2005 Mar; 9(1):109-19. PubMed ID: 15787013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Fully automated gradient based breast boundary detection for digitized X-ray mammograms.
Kus P; Karagoz I
Comput Biol Med; 2012 Jan; 42(1):75-82. PubMed ID: 22118773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of computer-aided detection of lesions in mammograms obtained with a digital phase-contrast mammography system.
Tanaka T; Nitta N; Ohta S; Kobayashi T; Kano A; Tsuchiya K; Murakami Y; Kitahara S; Wakamiya M; Furukawa A; Takahashi M; Murata K
Eur Radiol; 2009 Dec; 19(12):2886-95. PubMed ID: 19585121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of using manual or automatic breast density information in a mass detection CAD system.
Oliver A; Lladó X; Freixenet J; Martí R; Pérez E; Pont J; Zwiggelaar R
Acad Radiol; 2010 Jul; 17(7):877-83. PubMed ID: 20540910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Identification of the breast edge using areas enclosed by iso-intensity contours.
Padayachee J; Alport MJ; Rae WI
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2007 Sep; 31(6):390-400. PubMed ID: 17398069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Characterization of architectural distortion in mammograms.
Ayres FJ; Rangayyan RM
IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag; 2005; 24(1):59-67. PubMed ID: 15709538
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Computer-aided mass detection on digitized mammograms using adaptive thresholding and fuzzy entropy.
Younesi F; Alam N; Zoroofi RA; Ahmadian A; Guiti M
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2007; 2007():5638-41. PubMed ID: 18003291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A completely automated CAD system for mass detection in a large mammographic database.
Bellotti R; De Carlo F; Tangaro S; Gargano G; Maggipinto G; Castellano M; Massafra R; Cascio D; Fauci F; Magro R; Raso G; Lauria A; Forni G; Bagnasco S; Cerello P; Zanon E; Cheran SC; Lopez Torres E; Bottigli U; Masala GL; Oliva P; Retico A; Fantacci ME; Cataldo R; De Mitri I; De Nunzio G
Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):3066-75. PubMed ID: 16964885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Computerized detection of breast tissue asymmetry depicted on bilateral mammograms: a preliminary study of breast risk stratification.
Wang X; Lederman D; Tan J; Wang XH; Zheng B
Acad Radiol; 2010 Oct; 17(10):1234-41. PubMed ID: 20619697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A heuristic approach to automated nipple detection in digital mammograms.
Jas M; Mukhopadhyay S; Chakraborty J; Sadhu A; Khandelwal N
J Digit Imaging; 2013 Oct; 26(5):932-40. PubMed ID: 23423610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An evaluation and comparison of the performance of state of the art approaches for the detection of spiculated masses in mammograms.
Kage A; Elter M; Wittenberg T
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2007; 2007():3773-6. PubMed ID: 18002819
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of similarity measures for the task of template matching of masses on serial mammograms.
Filev P; Hadjiiski L; Sahiner B; Chan HP; Helvie MA
Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):515-29. PubMed ID: 15789598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
