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.
177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9017014)
61. An analysis of perceptual errors in reading mammograms using quasi-local spatial frequency spectra. Mello-Thoms C; Dunn SM; Nodine CF; Kundel HL J Digit Imaging; 2001 Sep; 14(3):117-23. PubMed ID: 11720333 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. Features of prospectively overlooked computer-aided detection marks on prior screening digital mammograms in women with breast cancer. Cho N; Kim SJ; Choi HY; Lyou CY; Moon WK AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Nov; 195(5):1276-82. PubMed ID: 20966340 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Visual search of mammographic images: influence of lesion subtlety. Krupinski EA Acad Radiol; 2005 Aug; 12(8):965-9. PubMed ID: 16023379 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. Segmentation and detection of breast cancer in mammograms combining wavelet analysis and genetic algorithm. Pereira DC; Ramos RP; do Nascimento MZ Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2014 Apr; 114(1):88-101. PubMed ID: 24513228 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. Improving Performance of Mammographic Breast Positioning in an Academic Radiology Practice. Pal S; Ikeda DM; Jesinger RA; Mickelsen LJ; Chen CA; Larson DB AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Apr; 210(4):807-815. PubMed ID: 29412019 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. A fuzzy rule-based approach for characterization of mammogram masses into BI-RADS shape categories. Vadivel A; Surendiran B Comput Biol Med; 2013 May; 43(4):259-67. PubMed ID: 23414779 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. A concentric morphology model for the detection of masses in mammography. Eltonsy NH; Tourassi GD; Elmaghraby AS IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2007 Jun; 26(6):880-9. PubMed ID: 17679338 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Improvement in radiologists' characterization of malignant and benign breast masses on serial mammograms with computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. Hadjiiski L; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Blane C; Paramagul C; Petrick N; Bailey J; Klein K; Foster M; Patterson S; Adler D; Nees A; Shen J Radiology; 2004 Oct; 233(1):255-65. PubMed ID: 15317954 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. Challenges in mammography: part 1, artifacts in digital mammography. Geiser WR; Haygood TM; Santiago L; Stephens T; Thames D; Whitman GJ AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Dec; 197(6):W1023-30. PubMed ID: 22109316 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. Comparison of similarity measures for the task of template matching of masses on serial mammograms. Filev P; Hadjiiski L; Sahiner B; Chan HP; Helvie MA Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):515-29. PubMed ID: 15789598 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Strategies for digital mammography interpretation in a clinical patient population. van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Flobbe K Int J Cancer; 2009 Dec; 125(12):2923-9. PubMed ID: 19672861 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. Evaluation of a computer-aided detection (CAD)-enhanced 2D synthetic mammogram: comparison with standard synthetic 2D mammograms and conventional 2D digital mammography. James JJ; Giannotti E; Chen Y Clin Radiol; 2018 Oct; 73(10):886-892. PubMed ID: 29970247 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Optimizing Case-based detection performance in a multiview CAD system for mammography. Samulski M; Karssemeijer N IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2011 Apr; 30(4):1001-9. PubMed ID: 21233045 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography. Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study. Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. Bilateral analysis based false positive reduction for computer-aided mass detection. Wu YT; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM; Sahiner B; Zhou C; Ge J; Shi J; Zhang Y; Chan HP Med Phys; 2007 Aug; 34(8):3334-44. PubMed ID: 17879797 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. How visual search relates to visual diagnostic performance: a narrative systematic review of eye-tracking research in radiology. van der Gijp A; Ravesloot CJ; Jarodzka H; van der Schaaf MF; van der Schaaf IC; van Schaik JPJ; Ten Cate TJ Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2017 Aug; 22(3):765-787. PubMed ID: 27436353 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Computer aided detection of masses in mammography using subregion Hotelling observers. Baydush AH; Catarious DM; Abbey CK; Floyd CE Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1781-7. PubMed ID: 12906196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. A preliminary study on computerized lesion localization in MR mammography using 3D nMITR maps, multilayer cellular neural networks, and fuzzy c-partitioning. Ertas G; Gulcur HO; Tunaci M; Osman O; Ucan ON Med Phys; 2008 Jan; 35(1):195-205. PubMed ID: 18293575 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
80. Performance of radiographers in mammogram interpretation: a systematic review. van den Biggelaar FJ; Nelemans PJ; Flobbe K Breast; 2008 Feb; 17(1):85-90. PubMed ID: 17764941 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]