90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23477828)
21. Breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammogram using multiscale curvelet transform.
Eltoukhy MM; Faye I; Samir BB
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2010 Jun; 34(4):269-76. PubMed ID: 20004076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A review of automatic mass detection and segmentation in mammographic images.
Oliver A; Freixenet J; Martí J; Pérez E; Pont J; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
Med Image Anal; 2010 Apr; 14(2):87-110. PubMed ID: 20071209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Clinical comparison of a novel breast DXA technique to mammographic density.
Shepherd JA; Herve L; Landau J; Fan B; Kerlikowske K; Cummings SR
Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1490-8. PubMed ID: 16752583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Development of an automated method for detecting mammographic masses with a partial loss of region.
Hatanaka Y; Hara T; Fujita H; Kasai S; Endo T; Iwase T
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1209-14. PubMed ID: 11811821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Effect of slice thickness on detectability in breast CT using a prewhitened matched filter and simulated mass lesions.
Packard NJ; Abbey CK; Yang K; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2012 Apr; 39(4):1818-30. PubMed ID: 22482604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Detection of breast masses in mammograms by density slicing and texture flow-field analysis.
Mudigonda NR; Rangayyan RM; Desautels JE
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1215-27. PubMed ID: 11811822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A study on mastectomy samples to evaluate breast imaging quality and potential clinical relevance of differential phase contrast mammography.
Hauser N; Wang Z; Kubik-Huch RA; Trippel M; Singer G; Hohl MK; Roessl E; Köhler T; van Stevendaal U; Wieberneit N; Stampanoni M
Invest Radiol; 2014 Mar; 49(3):131-7. PubMed ID: 24141742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. GPCALMA: implementation in Italian hospitals of a computer aided detection system for breast lesions by mammography examination.
Lauria A
Phys Med; 2009 Jun; 25(2):58-72. PubMed ID: 18602854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography.
Svane G; Azavedo E; Lindman K; Urech M; Nilsson J; Weber N; Lindqvist L; Ullberg C
Acta Radiol; 2011 Mar; 52(2):134-42. PubMed ID: 21498340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software.
Paquerault S; Samuelson FW; Petrick N; Myers KJ; Smith RC
Acad Radiol; 2009 Sep; 16(9):1095-107. PubMed ID: 19523855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Ductal carcinoma in situ: computer-aided detection in screening mammography.
Pai VR; Gregory NE; Swinford AE; Rebner M
Radiology; 2006 Dec; 241(3):689-94. PubMed ID: 17053200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Polygonal modeling of contours of breast tumors with the preservation of spicules.
Guliato D; Rangayyan RM; Carvalho JD; Santiago SA
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2008 Jan; 55(1):14-20. PubMed ID: 18232342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities.
Byng JW; Boyd NF; Fishell E; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 1994 Oct; 39(10):1629-38. PubMed ID: 15551535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Is an ROC-type response truly always better than a binary response in observer performance studies?
Gur D; Bandos AI; Rockette HE; Zuley ML; Hakim CM; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Sumkin JH
Acad Radiol; 2010 May; 17(5):639-45. PubMed ID: 20236840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Mammography image quality: model for predicting compliance with posterior nipple line criterion.
Spuur K; Hung WT; Poulos A; Rickard M
Eur J Radiol; 2011 Dec; 80(3):713-8. PubMed ID: 20621431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Temporal change analysis for characterization of mass lesions in mammography.
Timp S; Varela C; Karssemeijer N
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2007 Jul; 26(7):945-53. PubMed ID: 17649908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
