301 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35574397)
21. A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening.
Wahab RA; Lee SJ; Zhang B; Sobel L; Mahoney MC
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 107():14-19. PubMed ID: 30292258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Automated pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms: Comparison of deep neural network to conventional computer vision.
Ma X; Wei J; Zhou C; Helvie MA; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Lu Y
Med Phys; 2019 May; 46(5):2103-2114. PubMed ID: 30771257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A real use case of semi-supervised learning for mammogram classification in a local clinic of Costa Rica.
Calderon-Ramirez S; Murillo-Hernandez D; Rojas-Salazar K; Elizondo D; Yang S; Moemeni A; Molina-Cabello M
Med Biol Eng Comput; 2022 Apr; 60(4):1159-1175. PubMed ID: 35239108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Benefits of digital breast tomosynthesis: A lesion-level analysis.
Amir T; Ambinder EB; Harvey SC; Oluyemi ET; Jones MK; Honig E; Alvin MD; Mullen LA
J Med Screen; 2021 Sep; 28(3):311-317. PubMed ID: 33334233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Digital mammography dataset for breast cancer diagnosis research (DMID) with breast mass segmentation analysis.
Oza P; Oza U; Oza R; Sharma P; Patel S; Kumar P; Gohel B
Biomed Eng Lett; 2024 Mar; 14(2):317-330. PubMed ID: 38374902
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Interval breast cancer characteristics before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.
van Bommel RMG; Weber R; Voogd AC; Nederend J; Louwman MWJ; Venderink D; Strobbe LJA; Rutten MJC; Plaisier ML; Lohle PN; Hooijen MJH; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
BMC Cancer; 2017 May; 17(1):315. PubMed ID: 28476109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. High-resolution synthesis of high-density breast mammograms: Application to improved fairness in deep learning based mass detection.
Garrucho L; Kushibar K; Osuala R; Diaz O; Catanese A; Del Riego J; Bobowicz M; Strand F; Igual L; Lekadir K
Front Oncol; 2022; 12():1044496. PubMed ID: 36755853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Connected-SegNets: A Deep Learning Model for Breast Tumor Segmentation from X-ray Images.
Alkhaleefah M; Tan TH; Chang CH; Wang TC; Ma SC; Chang L; Chang YL
Cancers (Basel); 2022 Aug; 14(16):. PubMed ID: 36011022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Evaluation of data augmentation via synthetic images for improved breast mass detection on mammograms using deep learning.
Cha KH; Petrick N; Pezeshk A; Graff CG; Sharma D; Badal A; Sahiner B
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2020 Jan; 7(1):012703. PubMed ID: 31763356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Mass segmentation for whole mammograms via attentive multi-task learning framework.
Hou X; Bai Y; Xie Y; Li Y
Phys Med Biol; 2021 May; 66(10):. PubMed ID: 33882475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Whole mammographic mass segmentation using attention mechanism and multiscale pooling adversarial network.
Wang Y; Wang S; Chen J; Wu C
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2020 Sep; 7(5):054503. PubMed ID: 33102621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice.
Freer PE; Riegert J; Eisenmenger L; Ose D; Winkler N; Stein MA; Stoddard GJ; Hess R
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Nov; 166(2):501-509. PubMed ID: 28780702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Deep adversarial domain adaptation for breast cancer screening from mammograms.
Wang Y; Feng Y; Zhang L; Wang Z; Lv Q; Yi Z
Med Image Anal; 2021 Oct; 73():102147. PubMed ID: 34246849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Computerized image analysis: texture-field orientation method for pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms.
Zhou C; Wei J; Chan HP; Paramagul C; Hadjiiski LM; Sahiner B; Douglas JA
Med Phys; 2010 May; 37(5):2289-99. PubMed ID: 20527563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Impact of full field digital mammography on the classification and mammographic characteristics of interval breast cancers.
Knox M; O'Brien A; Szabó E; Smith CS; Fenlon HM; McNicholas MM; Flanagan FL
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Jun; 84(6):1056-61. PubMed ID: 25816990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Mass type-specific sparse representation for mass classification in computer-aided detection on mammograms.
Kim DH; Lee SH; Ro YM
Biomed Eng Online; 2013; 12 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S3. PubMed ID: 24564973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Is There a Difference in the Diagnostic Outcomes of Calcifications Initially Identified on Synthetic Tomosynthesis Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography Screening?
Zhu H; Polat D; Evans P; Mootz A; Blackburn T; Xi Y; Dogan BE
Eur J Radiol; 2020 Dec; 133():109365. PubMed ID: 33142193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: integration of image modalities enhances deep learning-based breast mass classification.
Li X; Qin G; He Q; Sun L; Zeng H; He Z; Chen W; Zhen X; Zhou L
Eur Radiol; 2020 Feb; 30(2):778-788. PubMed ID: 31691121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
