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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7858011)

  • 1. A method for determination of optimal image enhancement for the detection of mammographic abnormalities.
    Puff DT; Pisano ED; Muller KE; Johnston RE; Hemminger BM; Burbeck CA; McLelland R; Pizer SM
    J Digit Imaging; 1994 Nov; 7(4):161-71. PubMed ID: 7858011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Breast image pre-processing for mammographic tissue segmentation.
    He W; Hogg P; Juette A; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
    Comput Biol Med; 2015 Dec; 67():61-73. PubMed ID: 26498046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Improving the detection of simulated masses in mammograms through two different image-processing techniques.
    Hemminger BM; Zong S; Muller KE; Coffey CS; DeLuca MC; Johnston RE; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 2001 Sep; 8(9):845-55. PubMed ID: 11724039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
    Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Utility of adaptive control processing for the interpretation of digital mammograms.
    Jinnouchi M; Yabuuchi H; Kubo M; Tokunaga E; Yamamoto H; Honda H
    Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1297-1303. PubMed ID: 25995309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using computer-extracted image features for modeling of error-making patterns in detection of mammographic masses among radiology residents.
    Zhang J; Lo JY; Kuzmiak CM; Ghate SV; Yoon SC; Mazurowski MA
    Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091907. PubMed ID: 25186394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Investigation of psychophysical measure for evaluation of similar images for mammographic masses: preliminary results.
    Muramatsu C; Li Q; Suzuki K; Schmidt RA; Shiraishi J; Newstead GM; Doi K
    Med Phys; 2005 Jul; 32(7):2295-304. PubMed ID: 16121585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital mammography: comparative performance of color LCD and monochrome CRT displays.
    Samei E; Poolla A; Ulissey MJ; Lewin JM
    Acad Radiol; 2007 May; 14(5):539-46. PubMed ID: 17434067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms?
    Pisano ED; Chandramouli J; Hemminger BM; DeLuca M; Glueck D; Johnston RE; Muller K; Braeuning MP; Pizer S
    J Digit Imaging; 1997 May; 10(2):79-84. PubMed ID: 9165422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mammographic feature enhancement by computerized image processing.
    Dhawan AP; Le Royer E
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 1988; 27(1):23-35. PubMed ID: 3409679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Digital mammography: novel applications.
    Rafferty EA
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2007 Sep; 45(5):831-43, vii. PubMed ID: 17888772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns.
    Al Mousa DS; Brennan PC; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Tan J; Mello-Thoms C
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1386-93. PubMed ID: 25172414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study.
    Sivaramakrishna R; Obuchowski NA; Chilcote WA; Cardenosa G; Powell KA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Jul; 175(1):45-51. PubMed ID: 10882244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Investigation of optimal use of computer-aided detection systems: the role of the "machine" in decision making process.
    Paquerault S; Hardy PT; Wersto N; Chen J; Smith RC
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Sep; 17(9):1112-21. PubMed ID: 20605489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Visual-search observers for assessing tomographic x-ray image quality.
    Gifford HC; Liang Z; Das M
    Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1563-75. PubMed ID: 26936739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.