93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22241616)
1. Compression paddle tilt correction in full-field digital mammograms.
Kallenberg MG; Karssemeijer N
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Feb; 57(3):703-15. PubMed ID: 22241616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of compression paddle tilt correction on volumetric breast density estimation.
Kallenberg MG; van Gils CH; Lokate M; den Heeten GJ; Karssemeijer N
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Aug; 57(16):5155-68. PubMed ID: 22842727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Thickness correction of mammographic images by means of a global parameter model of the compressed breast.
Snoeren PR; Karssemeijer N
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2004 Jul; 23(7):799-806. PubMed ID: 15250632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms.
van Engeland S; Snoeren PR; Huisman H; Boetes C; Karssemeijer N
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2006 Mar; 25(3):273-82. PubMed ID: 16524084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mammogram registration: a phantom-based evaluation of compressed breast thickness variation effects.
Richard FJ; Bakić PR; Maidment AD
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2006 Feb; 25(2):188-97. PubMed ID: 16468453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. MammoSys: A content-based image retrieval system using breast density patterns.
de Oliveira JE; Machado AM; Chavez GC; Lopes AP; Deserno TM; Araújo Ade A
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2010 Sep; 99(3):289-97. PubMed ID: 20207441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography in the detection of breast cancer: rays of light through DMIST or more fog?
Tice JA; Feldman MD
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2008 Jan; 107(2):157-65. PubMed ID: 17377840
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Gray-scale and geometric registration of full-field digital and film-screen mammograms.
Snoeren PR; Karssemeijer N
Med Image Anal; 2007 Apr; 11(2):146-56. PubMed ID: 17208511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Volumetric breast density characteristics as determined from digital mammograms.
Alonzo-Proulx O; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(22):7443-57. PubMed ID: 23093428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms.
Banik S; Rangayyan RM; Desautels JE
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2011 Feb; 30(2):279-94. PubMed ID: 20851789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The relationship between anatomic noise and volumetric breast density for digital mammography.
Mainprize JG; Tyson AH; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):4660-8. PubMed ID: 22894390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. MRT letter: segmentation and texture-based classification of breast mammogram images.
Naveed N; Jaffar MA; Choi TS
Microsc Res Tech; 2011 Nov; 74(11):985-7. PubMed ID: 21898670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Computer-aided evaluation of screening mammograms based on local texture models.
Grim J; Somol P; Haindl M; Danes J
IEEE Trans Image Process; 2009 Apr; 18(4):765-73. PubMed ID: 19228558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
Uematsu T; Kasami M
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The compressed breast during mammography and breast tomosynthesis: in vivo shape characterization and modeling.
Rodríguez-Ruiz A; Agasthya GA; Sechopoulos I
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Aug; 62(17):6920-6937. PubMed ID: 28665291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A novel and fully automated mammographic texture analysis for risk prediction: results from two case-control studies.
Wang C; Brentnall AR; Cuzick J; Harkness EF; Evans DG; Astley S
Breast Cancer Res; 2017 Oct; 19(1):114. PubMed ID: 29047382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Computerized analysis of tissue density effect on missed cancer detection in digital mammography.
Li L; Wu Z; Salem A; Chen Z; Chen L; George F; Kallergi M; Berman C
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2006 Jul; 30(5):291-7. PubMed ID: 16837164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
