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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7948171)

  • 1. Joint photographic experts group (JPEG) compatible data compression of mammograms.
    Good WF; Maitz GS; Gur D
    J Digit Imaging; 1994 Aug; 7(3):123-32. PubMed ID: 7948171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Applying computer-assisted detection schemes to digitized mammograms after JPEG data compression: an assessment.
    Zheng B; Sumkin JH; Good WF; Maitz GS; Chang YH; Gur D
    Acad Radiol; 2000 Aug; 7(8):595-602. PubMed ID: 10952109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quality of compressed medical images.
    Shiao YH; Chen TJ; Chuang KS; Lin CH; Chuang CC
    J Digit Imaging; 2007 Jun; 20(2):149-59. PubMed ID: 17318703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessment of visually lossless irreversible image compression: comparison of three methods by using an image-comparison workstation.
    Slone RM; Foos DH; Whiting BR; Muka E; Rubin DA; Pilgram TK; Kohm KS; Young SS; Ho P; Hendrickson DD
    Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):543-53. PubMed ID: 10796938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Acceptable compression ratio of full-field digital mammography using JPEG 2000.
    Kang BJ; Kim HS; Park CS; Choi JJ; Lee JH; Choi BG
    Clin Radiol; 2011 Jul; 66(7):609-13. PubMed ID: 21450282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of JPEG and FIF compression of color medical images for dermatology.
    Sneiderman C; Schosser R; Pearson TG
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 1994; 18(5):339-42. PubMed ID: 7954310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of lossy JPEG2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees compression of digitized mammograms.
    Penedo M; Souto M; Tahoces PG; Carreira JM; Villalón J; Porto G; Seoane C; Vidal JJ; Berbaum KS; Chakraborty DP; Fajardo LL
    Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):450-7. PubMed ID: 16244253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Qualitative JPEG 2000 compression in digital mammography - evaluation using 480 mammograms of the CDMAM phantom.
    Schreiter NF; Steffen IG; Miller J; Fallenberg E; Poellinger A; Bick U; Diekmann F
    Rofo; 2011 Jul; 183(7):650-7. PubMed ID: 21667423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of wavelet and Joint Photographic Experts Group lossy compression methods applied to medical images.
    Iyriboz TA; Zukoski MJ; Hopper KD; Stagg PL
    J Digit Imaging; 1999 May; 12(2 Suppl 1):14-7. PubMed ID: 10342156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Region-based wavelet coding methods for digital mammography.
    Penedo M; Pearlman WA; Tahoces PG; Souto M; Vidal JJ
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2003 Oct; 22(10):1288-96. PubMed ID: 14552582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Grading, image analysis, and stereopsis of digitally compressed fundus images.
    Lee MS; Shin DS; Berger JW
    Retina; 2000; 20(3):275-81. PubMed ID: 10872933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Wavelet versus JPEG (Joint Photographic Expert Group) and fractal compression. Impact on the detection of low-contrast details in computed radiographs.
    Ricke J; Maass P; Lopez Hänninen E; Liebig T; Amthauer H; Stroszczynski C; Schauer W; Boskamp T; Wolf M
    Invest Radiol; 1998 Aug; 33(8):456-63. PubMed ID: 9704285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effects of different image file formats and image-analysis software programs on dental radiometric digital evaluations.
    Gürdal P; Hildebolt CF; Akdeniz BG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Jan; 30(1):50-5. PubMed ID: 11175274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Joint Photographic Experts Group compression of intraoral radiographs for image transmission on the World Wide Web.
    Yuasa H; Ariji Y; Ohki M; Naitoh M; Shiojima M; Ushida M; Ariji E
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jul; 88(1):93-9. PubMed ID: 10442952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An evaluation of JPEG and JPEG 2000 irreversible compression algorithms applied to neurologic computed tomography and magnetic resonance images. Joint Photographic Experts Group.
    Savcenko V; Erickson BJ; Persons KR; Campeau NG; Huston J; Wood CP; Schreiner SA
    J Digit Imaging; 2000 May; 13(2 Suppl 1):183-5. PubMed ID: 10847394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interaction between noise and file compression and its effect on the recognition of caries in digital imaging.
    Janhom A; van der Stelt PF; van Ginkel FC
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 10654032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Indirect digital images: limit of image compression for diagnosis in endodontics.
    Siragusa M; McDonnell DJ
    Int Endod J; 2002 Dec; 35(12):991-5. PubMed ID: 12653317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Optimal filter-based detection of microcalcifications.
    Gulsrud TO; Husøy JH
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2001 Nov; 48(11):1272-81. PubMed ID: 11686626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Evaluation of irreversible compressed images in computed radiography using physical image quality measures].
    Watanabe H; Tsai DY; Lee Y; Nakamura T; Miyazaki M; Kuramochi Y; Kojima K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2009 Dec; 65(12):1618-27. PubMed ID: 20124739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of lossy data compression in primary interpretation for full-field digital mammography.
    Kovacs MD; Reicher JJ; Grotts JF; Reicher MA; Trambert MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Mar; 204(3):570-5. PubMed ID: 25714287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.