Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 89

1.

Perceived sufficiency of full-field digital mammograms with and without irreversible image data compression for comparison with next-year mammograms.

Destounis S, Somerville P, Murphy P, Seifert P.

J Digit Imaging. 2011 Feb;24(1):66-74. doi: 10.1007/s10278-010-9277-6.

2.

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. Erratum in: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003 Dec;22(12):1575.

PMID:
14552582
3.

Effects of different compression techniques on diagnostic accuracies of breast masses on digitized mammograms.

Liang Z, Du X, Liu J, Yang Y, Rong D, Yao X, Li K.

Acta Radiol. 2008 Sep;49(7):747-51. doi: 10.1080/02841850802116241.

PMID:
18608020
4.

Visually lossless threshold determination for microcalcification detection in wavelet compressed mammograms.

Kocsis O, Costaridou L, Varaki L, Likaki E, Kalogeropoulou C, Skiadopoulos S, Panayiotakis G.

Eur Radiol. 2003 Oct;13(10):2390-6. Epub 2003 Feb 15.

PMID:
14534807
5.

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. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12912.

PMID:
25714287
6.

Quantitative visually lossless compression ratio determination of JPEG2000 in digitized mammograms.

Georgiev VT, Karahaliou AN, Skiadopoulos SG, Arikidis NS, Kazantzi AD, Panayiotakis GS, Costaridou LI.

J Digit Imaging. 2013 Jun;26(3):427-39. doi: 10.1007/s10278-012-9538-7.

7.

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. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Mar 29.

PMID:
21450282
8.

Wavelet compression and segmentation of digital mammograms.

Lucier BJ, Kallergi M, Qian W, DeVore RA, Clark RA, Saff EB, Clarke LP.

J Digit Imaging. 1994 Feb;7(1):27-38.

PMID:
8172976
9.

Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.

Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E.

Eur Radiol. 2002 Jul;12(7):1697-702. Epub 2002 Mar 19. Erratum in: Eur Radiol 2002 Sep;12(9):2388.

PMID:
12111060
10.

High-performance wavelet compression for mammography: localization response operating characteristic evaluation.

Kallergi M, Lucier BJ, Berman CG, Hersh MR, Kim JJ, Szabunio MS, Clark RA.

Radiology. 2006 Jan;238(1):62-73.

PMID:
16373759
11.

Irreversible JPEG 2000 compression of abdominal CT for primary interpretation: assessment of visually lossless threshold.

Lee KH, Kim YH, Kim BH, Kim KJ, Kim TJ, Kim HJ, Hahn S.

Eur Radiol. 2007 Jun;17(6):1529-34. Epub 2006 Nov 22.

PMID:
17119972
12.

Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.

Nishikawa RM, Acharyya S, Gatsonis C, Pisano ED, Cole EB, Marques HS, D'Orsi CJ, Farria DM, Kanal KM, Mahoney MC, Rebner M, Staiger MJ; Digital Mammography Image Screening Trial investigator group..

Radiology. 2009 Apr;251(1):41-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2511071462.

13.

Effect of image compression and scaling on automated scoring of immunohistochemical stainings and segmentation of tumor epithelium.

Konsti J, Lundin M, Linder N, Haglund C, Blomqvist C, Nevanlinna H, Aaltonen K, Nordling S, Lundin J.

Diagn Pathol. 2012 Mar 21;7:29. doi: 10.1186/1746-1596-7-29.

14.

Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography.

Uematsu T.

Jpn J Radiol. 2009 May;27(4):168-75. doi: 10.1007/s11604-009-0315-6. Epub 2009 Jun 6.

PMID:
19499307
15.

Impact of lossy image compression on accuracy of caries detection in digital images taken with a storage phosphor system.

Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Borg E, Gröndahl HG.

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996 Mar;81(3):351-5.

PMID:
8653470
16.

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.

PMID:
10966717
17.

Automatic breast region extraction from digital mammograms for PACS and telemammography applications.

Lou SL, Lin HD, Lin KP, Hoogstrate D.

Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2000 Jul-Aug;24(4):205-20.

PMID:
10842045
18.

Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications.

Kim MJ, Youk JH, Kang DR, Choi SH, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Kim EK.

Br J Radiol. 2010 Jun;83(990):486-92. doi: 10.1259/bjr/16967819. Epub 2009 Sep 14.

19.

Comparison of JPEG 2000 and Other Lossless Compression Schemes for Digital Mammograms.

Khademi A, Krishnan S.

Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2005;4:3771-4.

PMID:
17281050
20.

Swelling archives warrant closer look at compression.

Schreiber D.

Radiol Manage. 2003 Sep-Oct;25(5):36-9.

PMID:
14603591

Supplemental Content

Support Center