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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25055275)

  • 1. The effect of image processing on the detection of cancers in digital mammography.
    Warren LM; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Halling-Brown MD; Mackenzie A; Chakraborty DP; Bosmans H; Dance DR; Young KC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Aug; 203(2):387-93. PubMed ID: 25055275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Image processing can cause some malignant soft-tissue lesions to be missed in digital mammography images.
    Warren LM; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Dance DR; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM; Wilkinson L; McAvinchey R; Young KC
    Clin Radiol; 2017 Sep; 72(9):799.e1-799.e8. PubMed ID: 28457521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.
    Mackenzie A; Warren LM; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Dance DR; Chakraborty DP; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Young KC
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Mar; 26(3):874-83. PubMed ID: 26105023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.
    Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Chakraborty DP; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6):3202-13. PubMed ID: 22755704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.
    Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Celis V; Geniets C; Provost V; Pauwels H; Marchal G; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):765-75. PubMed ID: 19378737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.
    Mackenzie A; Warren LM; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM; Cooke J; Dance DR; Chakraborty DP; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Young KC
    Phys Med; 2016 Apr; 32(4):568-74. PubMed ID: 27061872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies.
    Ruschin M; Timberg P; Båth M; Hemdal B; Svahn T; Saunders RS; Samei E; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Chakrabort DP; Tingber A
    Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):400-7. PubMed ID: 17388156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
    Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
    Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical performance metrics of 3D stereoscopic digital mammography compared with 2D digital mammography: observer study.
    Daidoji A; Aoki T; Murakami S; Miyata M; Fujii M; Katsuki T; Inoue Y; Tashima Y; Nagata Y; Hirata K; Tanaka F; Korogi Y
    Br J Radiol; 2018 Jun; 91(1086):20170908. PubMed ID: 29319344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The effect of system geometry and dose on the threshold detectable calcification diameter in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Hadjipanteli A; Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Looney PT; Wells K; Dance DR; Young KC
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Feb; 62(3):858-877. PubMed ID: 28072582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: a 3D approach.
    Sahiner B; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Helvie MA; Wei J; Zhou C; Lu Y
    Med Phys; 2012 Jan; 39(1):28-39. PubMed ID: 22225272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.
    Kim HH; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Jiroutek MR; Muller KE; Zheng Y; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 16794154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The impact of simulated motion blur on lesion detection performance in full-field digital mammography.
    Abdullah AK; Kelly J; Thompson JD; Mercer CE; Aspin R; Hogg P
    Br J Radiol; 2017 Jul; 90(1075):20160871. PubMed ID: 28508724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Computer aided detection of clusters of microcalcifications on full field digital mammograms.
    Ge J; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Chan HP; Wei J; Helvie MA; Zhou C
    Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):2975-88. PubMed ID: 16964876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance.
    Samei E; Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM
    Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):396-404. PubMed ID: 17356178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.