710 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30119844)
41. Computer-aided diagnosis of mammographic microcalcification clusters.
Kallergi M
Med Phys; 2004 Feb; 31(2):314-26. PubMed ID: 15000617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Combined adaptive enhancement and region-growing segmentation of breast masses on digitized mammograms.
Petrick N; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA
Med Phys; 1999 Aug; 26(8):1642-54. PubMed ID: 10501064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. A novel featureless approach to mass detection in digital mammograms based on support vector machines.
Campanini R; Dongiovanni D; Iampieri E; Lanconelli N; Masotti M; Palermo G; Riccardi A; Roffilli M
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Mar; 49(6):961-75. PubMed ID: 15104319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. 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]
45. 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]
46. 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]
47. Correspondence in texture features between two mammographic views.
Gupta S; Markey MK
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1598-606. PubMed ID: 16013719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Radiomics robustness assessment and classification evaluation: A two-stage method demonstrated on multivendor FFDM.
Robinson K; Li H; Lan L; Schacht D; Giger M
Med Phys; 2019 May; 46(5):2145-2156. PubMed ID: 30802972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Evaluation of computer-aided diagnosis on a large clinical full-field digital mammographic dataset.
Li H; Giger ML; Yuan Y; Chen W; Horsch K; Lan L; Jamieson AR; Sennett CA; Jansen SA
Acad Radiol; 2008 Nov; 15(11):1437-45. PubMed ID: 18995194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Applying a new quantitative image analysis scheme based on global mammographic features to assist diagnosis of breast cancer.
Chen X; Zargari A; Hollingsworth AB; Liu H; Zheng B; Qiu Y
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2019 Oct; 179():104995. PubMed ID: 31443864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Breast density classification to reduce false positives in CADe systems.
Vállez N; Bueno G; Déniz O; Dorado J; Seoane JA; Pazos A; Pastor C
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2014 Feb; 113(2):569-84. PubMed ID: 24286729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. 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]
53. Local Binary Patterns Descriptor Based on Sparse Curvelet Coefficients for False-Positive Reduction in Mammograms.
Pawar MM; Talbar SN; Dudhane A
J Healthc Eng; 2018; 2018():5940436. PubMed ID: 30356422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Geometry-Based Pectoral Muscle Segmentation From MLO Mammogram Views.
Taghanaki SA; Liu Y; Miles B; Hamarneh G
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2017 Nov; 64(11):2662-2671. PubMed ID: 28129144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. 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]
56. Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers.
Sadaf A; Crystal P; Scaranelo A; Helbich T
Eur J Radiol; 2011 Mar; 77(3):457-61. PubMed ID: 19875260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Computer-aided characterization of mammographic masses: accuracy of mass segmentation and its effects on characterization.
Sahiner B; Petrick N; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Paramagul C; Helvie MA; Gurcan MN
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1275-84. PubMed ID: 11811827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Learning from unbalanced data: a cascade-based approach for detecting clustered microcalcifications.
Bria A; Karssemeijer N; Tortorella F
Med Image Anal; 2014 Feb; 18(2):241-52. PubMed ID: 24292553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Breast microcalcifications detection based on fusing features with DTCWT.
Wang Z; Xin J; Zhang Q; Gao S; Ma C; Ren J; Zhang H; Qian W; Zhu W; Zhang X; Liu J
J Xray Sci Technol; 2020; 28(2):197-218. PubMed ID: 31985483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
