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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9399171)

  • 1. The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting.
    Pisano ED; Chandramouli J; Hemminger BM; Glueck D; Johnston RE; Muller K; Braeuning MP; Puff D; Garrett W; Pizer S
    J Digit Imaging; 1997 Nov; 10(4):174-82. PubMed ID: 9399171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms.
    Pisano ED; Zong S; Hemminger BM; DeLuca M; Johnston RE; Muller K; Braeuning MP; Pizer SM
    J Digit Imaging; 1998 Nov; 11(4):193-200. PubMed ID: 9848052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms.
    Hemminger BM; Dillon AW; Johnston RE; Muller KE; Deluca MC; Coffey CS; Pisano ED
    Med Phys; 1999 Nov; 26(11):2266-72. PubMed ID: 10587207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. A method to test the reproducibility and to improve performance of computer-aided detection schemes for digitized mammograms.
    Zheng B; Gur D; Good WF; Hardesty LA
    Med Phys; 2004 Nov; 31(11):2964-72. PubMed ID: 15587648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A computational model to generate simulated three-dimensional breast masses.
    de Sisternes L; Brankov JG; Zysk AM; Schmidt RA; Nishikawa RM; Wernick MN
    Med Phys; 2015 Feb; 42(2):1098-118. PubMed ID: 25652522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of microcalcifications segmentation techniques for dense breast digitized images.
    Góes CE; Schiabel H; Nunes FL
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():231-3. PubMed ID: 12105737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms.
    Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G
    Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A segmentation technique to detect masses in dense breast digitized mammograms.
    Santos VT; Schiabel H; Góes CE; Benatti RH
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():210-3. PubMed ID: 12105730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.
    Cole EB; Pisano ED; Kistner EO; Muller KE; Brown ME; Feig SA; Jong RA; Maidment AD; Staiger MJ; Kuzmiak CM; Freimanis RI; Lesko N; Rosen EL; Walsh R; Williford M; Braeuning MP
    Radiology; 2003 Jan; 226(1):153-60. PubMed ID: 12511684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Search for lesions in mammograms: statistical characterization of observer responses.
    Bochud FO; Abbey CK; Eckstein MP
    Med Phys; 2004 Jan; 31(1):24-36. PubMed ID: 14761017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Performance and reproducibility of a computerized mass detection scheme for digitized mammography using rotated and resampled images: an assessment.
    Zheng B; Maitz GS; Ganott MA; Abrams G; Leader JK; Gur D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jul; 185(1):194-8. PubMed ID: 15972422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.