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 *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9755699)

  • 1. Assessment of image quality and total performance in Norwegian mammography laboratories. Findings in a national survey based on different phantoms and ROC methodology.
    Olsen JB; Skretting A; Widmark A
    Acta Radiol; 1998 Sep; 39(5):507-13. PubMed ID: 9755699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Detectability of simulated masses and calcifications in mammography. Development of a phantom and a new method for determination of receiver operating characteristics.
    Olsen JB; Skretting A
    Acta Radiol; 1998 Sep; 39(5):501-6. PubMed ID: 9755698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Computed radiography versus screen-film mammography in detection of simulated microcalcifications: a receiver operating characteristic study based on phantom images.
    Shaw CC; Wang T; King JL; Breitenstein DS; Chang TS; Harris KM; Baratz AB; Ganott MA; Reginella R; Sumkin JH; Gur D
    Acad Radiol; 1998 Mar; 5(3):173-80. PubMed ID: 9522883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. ROC study of the effect of stereoscopic imaging on assessment of breast lesions.
    Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski LM; Lydick JT; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Nees A; Blane CE; Sahiner B
    Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1001-9. PubMed ID: 15895583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).
    Rong XJ; Shaw CC; Johnston DA; Lemacks MR; Liu X; Whitman GJ; Dryden MJ; Stephens TW; Thompson SK; Krugh KT; Lai CJ
    Med Phys; 2002 Sep; 29(9):2052-61. PubMed ID: 12349926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography.
    Yip WM; Pang SY; Yim WS; Kwok CS
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Jul; 74(883):621-8. PubMed ID: 11509398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Storage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography--a phantom study.
    Funke M; Breiter N; Hermann KP; Oestmann JW; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 1998 May; 71(845):528-34. PubMed ID: 9691898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Digital storage phosphor mammography in a magnification technic: experimental studies for spatial resolution and for detection of microcalcifications].
    Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Hundertmark C; Sachs J; Gruhl T; Sperner W; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1997 Aug; 167(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 9333359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Use of the ROC method in image quality problems in roentgen mammography. I. ROC analysis as image quality test procedure].
    Klein R; Säbel M
    Rontgenpraxis; 2000; 53(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 10943140
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Improvement of detectability of microcalcifications by magnification digital mammography].
    Higashida Y; Hatemura M; Yoshida A; Takada T; Takahashi M
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Aug; 58(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 9778932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An anthropomorphic phantom for receiver operating characteristic studies in CT imaging of liver lesions.
    Olerud HM; Olsen JB; Skretting A
    Br J Radiol; 1999 Jan; 72(853):35-43. PubMed ID: 10341687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Performance tests for mammographic film-screen combinations: use of absolute techniques.
    Bor D; Akdur K
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2013; 19(5):360-70. PubMed ID: 23603122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [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]  

  • 16. Mammographic Phantoms Frequently Used to Determine Image Quality: A Comparative Study.
    AlKhalifah K; Brindabhan A
    J Allied Health; 2017; 46(4):239-242. PubMed ID: 29202159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Determination of contrast-detail curves in mammography image quality assessment by a parametric model observer.
    Kretz T; Anton M; Schaeffter T; Elster C
    Phys Med; 2019 Jun; 62():120-128. PubMed ID: 31153391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Toward image quality assessment in mammography using model observers: Detection of a calcification-like object.
    Bouwman RW; Mackenzie A; van Engen RE; Broeders MJM; Young KC; Dance DR; den Heeten GJ; Veldkamp WJH
    Med Phys; 2017 Nov; 44(11):5726-5739. PubMed ID: 28837225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.