248 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3623862)
1. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Vyborny CJ; MacMahon H; Metz CE; Doi K; Sickles EA
Invest Radiol; 1987 Jul; 22(7):581-9. PubMed ID: 3623862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Detection of subtle microcalcifications: comparison of computed radiography and screen-film mammography.
Higashida Y; Moribe N; Morita K; Katsuda N; Hatemura M; Takada T; Takahashi M; Yamashita J
Radiology; 1992 May; 183(2):483-6. PubMed ID: 1561354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
Wiebringhaus R; John V; Müller RD; Hirche H; Voss M; Callies R
Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Detecting clustered microcalcifications in the female breast: secondary digitized images versus mammograms.
De Maeseneer M; Beeckman P; Osteaux M; Mattheus R; Hoste M; Bastaerts Y; Jong B
J Belge Radiol; 1992 Jun; 75(3):173-8. PubMed ID: 1400145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group.
Pisano ED; Cole EB; Major S; Zong S; Hemminger BM; Muller KE; Johnston RE; Walsh R; Conant E; Fajardo LL; Feig SA; Nishikawa RM; Yaffe MJ; Williams MB; Aylward SR
Radiology; 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30. PubMed ID: 10966717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Adler DD; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Blane CE; Joynt LK; Wilson TE; Hadjiiski LM; Goodsitt MM
Acad Radiol; 2001 Jun; 8(6):454-66. PubMed ID: 11394537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Investigation of reduction of exposure dose in digital mammography: relationship between exposure dose and image processing].
Fujimura Y; Nishiyama H; Masumoto T; Kono S; Kitagawa Y; Ikeda T; Furukawa T; Ishida T
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2008 Feb; 64(2):259-67. PubMed ID: 18311032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Efficacy of storage phosphor-based digital mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer--comparison with film-screen mammography].
Kitahama H
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1991 May; 51(5):547-60. PubMed ID: 1651472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Image compression in digital mammography: effects on computerized detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Lo SC; Niklason LT; Ikeda DM; Lam KL
Med Phys; 1996 Aug; 23(8):1325-36. PubMed ID: 8873029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Segmentation of suspicious clustered microcalcifications in mammograms.
Gavrielides MA; Lo JY; Vargas-Voracek R; Floyd CE
Med Phys; 2000 Jan; 27(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 10659733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Detection of microcalcifications in digital mammograms using wavelets.
Wang TC; Karayiannis NB
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1998 Aug; 17(4):498-509. PubMed ID: 9845306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography].
Diekmann S; Bick U; von Heyden H; Diekmann F
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):775-9. PubMed ID: 12811689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital luminescence mammography. Early clinical experience.
Jarlman O; Samuelsson L; Braw M
Acta Radiol; 1991 Mar; 32(2):110-3. PubMed ID: 2031792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Full-field digital mammography: a phantom study for detection of microcalcification].
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Schorn C; Funke M; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2000 Jul; 172(7):646-50. PubMed ID: 10962993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. New CR system with pixel size of 50 microm for digital mammography: physical imaging properties and detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Ideguchi T; Higashida Y; Kawaji Y; Sasaki M; Zaizen M; Shibayama R; Nakamura Y; Koyanagi K; Ikeda H; Ohki M; Toyofuku F; Muranaka T
Radiat Med; 2004; 22(4):218-24. PubMed ID: 15468941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.
Obenauer S; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Munzel U; Baum F; Grabbe E
Eur Radiol; 2002 Jul; 12(7):1697-702. PubMed ID: 12111060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A quantitative method for evaluating the detectability of lesions in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):214-8. PubMed ID: 18319282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
