130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21158311)
1. Multilevel learning-based segmentation of ill-defined and spiculated masses in mammograms.
Tao Y; Lo SC; Freedman MT; Makariou E; Xuan J
Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):5993-6002. PubMed ID: 21158311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Development of tolerant features for characterization of masses in mammograms.
Rojas-Domínguez A; Nandi AK
Comput Biol Med; 2009 Aug; 39(8):678-88. PubMed ID: 19524221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A model-based framework for the detection of spiculated masses on mammography.
Sampat MP; Bovik AC; Whitman GJ; Markey MK
Med Phys; 2008 May; 35(5):2110-23. PubMed ID: 18561687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast cancer: importance of spiculation in computer-aided detection.
Vyborny CJ; Doi T; O'Shaughnessy KF; Romsdahl HM; Schneider AC; Stein AA
Radiology; 2000 Jun; 215(3):703-7. PubMed ID: 10831688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Using computer-extracted image features for modeling of error-making patterns in detection of mammographic masses among radiology residents.
Zhang J; Lo JY; Kuzmiak CM; Ghate SV; Yoon SC; Mazurowski MA
Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091907. PubMed ID: 25186394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Contour tracing for segmentation of mammographic masses.
Elter M; Held C; Wittenberg T
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Sep; 55(18):5299-315. PubMed ID: 20736492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Digital mammogram spiculated mass detection and spicule segmentation using level sets.
Ball JE; Bruce LM
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2007; 2007():4979-84. PubMed ID: 18003124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A fuzzy rule-based approach for characterization of mammogram masses into BI-RADS shape categories.
Vadivel A; Surendiran B
Comput Biol Med; 2013 May; 43(4):259-67. PubMed ID: 23414779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Level set-based core segmentation of mammographic masses facilitating three stage (core, periphery, spiculation) analysis.
Ball JE; Bruce LM
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2007; 2007():819-24. PubMed ID: 18002082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: Deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning from mammography.
Samala RK; Chan HP; Hadjiiski L; Helvie MA; Wei J; Cha K
Med Phys; 2016 Dec; 43(12):6654. PubMed ID: 27908154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Automated detection of breast mass spiculation levels and evaluation of scheme performance.
Jiang L; Song E; Xu X; Ma G; Zheng B
Acad Radiol; 2008 Dec; 15(12):1534-44. PubMed ID: 19000870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound images.
Sahiner B; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Roubidoux MA; Paramagul C; Bailey JE; Nees AV; Blane CE; Adler DD; Patterson SK; Klein KA; Pinsky RW; Helvie MA
Acad Radiol; 2009 Jul; 16(7):810-8. PubMed ID: 19375953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A spatial shape constrained clustering method for mammographic mass segmentation.
Lou JY; Yang XL; Cao AZ
Comput Math Methods Med; 2015; 2015():891692. PubMed ID: 25737739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Breast lesion shape and margin evaluation: BI-RADS based metrics understate radiologists' actual levels of agreement.
Rawashdeh M; Lewis S; Zaitoun M; Brennan P
Comput Biol Med; 2018 May; 96():294-298. PubMed ID: 29673997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Location of mammograms ROI's and reduction of false-positive.
Salazar-Licea LA; Pedraza-Ortega JC; Pastrana-Palma A; Aceves-Fernandez MA
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2017 May; 143():97-111. PubMed ID: 28391823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of temporal changes of mammographic features: computer-aided classification of malignant and benign breast masses.
Hadjiiski L; Sahiner B; Chan HP; Petrick N; Helvie MA; Gurcan M
Med Phys; 2001 Nov; 28(11):2309-17. PubMed ID: 11764038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Steepest changes of a probability-based cost function for delineation of mammographic masses: a validation study.
Kinnard L; Lo SC; Makariou E; Osicka T; Wang P; Chouikha MF; Freedman MT
Med Phys; 2004 Oct; 31(10):2796-810. PubMed ID: 15543787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast mass contour segmentation algorithm in digital mammograms.
Berber T; Alpkocak A; Balci P; Dicle O
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2013 May; 110(2):150-9. PubMed ID: 23273502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An efficient fractal method for detection and diagnosis of breast masses in mammograms.
Beheshti SM; AhmadiNoubari H; Fatemizadeh E; Khalili M
J Digit Imaging; 2014 Oct; 27(5):661-9. PubMed ID: 24777687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
