117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12893699)
1. Breast density: agreement of measures from film and digital image.
Jeffreys M; Warren R; Smith GD; Gunnell D
Br J Radiol; 2003 Aug; 76(908):561-3. PubMed ID: 12893699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full field digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation.
Keller BM; Nathan DL; Wang Y; Zheng Y; Gee JC; Conant EF; Kontos D
Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):4903-17. PubMed ID: 22894417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of mammographic density patterns: reproducibility and concordance among scales.
Garrido-Estepa M; Ruiz-Perales F; Miranda J; Ascunce N; González-Román I; Sánchez-Contador C; Santamariña C; Moreo P; Vidal C; Peris M; Moreno MP; Váquez-Carrete JA; Collado-García F; Casanova F; Ederra M; Salas D; Pollán M;
BMC Cancer; 2010 Sep; 10():485. PubMed ID: 20836850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reproducibility of visual assessment on mammographic density.
Gao J; Warren R; Warren-Forward H; Forbes JF
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2008 Mar; 108(1):121-7. PubMed ID: 17616811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Computer-assisted diagnosis: the classification of mammographic breast parenchymal patterns.
Tahoces PG; Correa J; Souto M; Gómez L; Vidal JJ
Phys Med Biol; 1995 Jan; 40(1):103-17. PubMed ID: 7708834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computer-aided detection in digital mammography: comparison of craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique, and mediolateral views.
Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Cha JH; Kim SM; Im JG
Radiology; 2006 Dec; 241(3):695-701. PubMed ID: 17114620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Initial experiences of using an automated volumetric measure of breast density: the standard mammogram form.
Jeffreys M; Warren R; Highnam R; Smith GD
Br J Radiol; 2006 May; 79(941):378-82. PubMed ID: 16632617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Women's features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN).
Pérez-Gómez B; Ruiz F; Martínez I; Casals M; Miranda J; Sánchez-Contador C; Vidal C; Llobet R; Pollán M; Salas D
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2012 Feb; 132(1):287-95. PubMed ID: 22042363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors: automated measurement development for full field digital mammography.
Fowler EE; Sellers TA; Lu B; Heine JJ
Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):113502. PubMed ID: 24320473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study.
Boyd NF; Byng JW; Jong RA; Fishell EK; Little LE; Miller AB; Lockwood GA; Tritchler DL; Yaffe MJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1995 May; 87(9):670-5. PubMed ID: 7752271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Association and Prediction Utilizing Craniocaudal and Mediolateral Oblique View Digital Mammography and Long-Term Breast Cancer Risk.
Chen S; Tamimi RM; Colditz GA; Jiang S
Cancer Prev Res (Phila); 2023 Sep; 16(9):531-537. PubMed ID: 37428020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.
Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Cole EB; Marques HS; Yaffe MJ; Blevins M; Conant EF; Hendrick RE; Baum JK; Fajardo LL; Jong RA; Koomen MA; Kuzmiak CM; Lee Y; Pavic D; Yoon SC; Padungchaichote W; Gatsonis C
Radiology; 2009 Aug; 252(2):348-57. PubMed ID: 19703878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Full-field digital mammographic interpretation with prior analog versus prior digitized analog mammography: time for interpretation.
Garg AS; Rapelyea JA; Rechtman LR; Torrente J; Bittner RB; Coffey CM; Brem RF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jun; 196(6):1436-8. PubMed ID: 21606310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data.
Vachon CM; Fowler EE; Tiffenberg G; Scott CG; Pankratz VS; Sellers TA; Heine JJ
Breast Cancer Res; 2013 Jan; 15(1):R1. PubMed ID: 23289950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Automated pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms: Comparison of deep neural network to conventional computer vision.
Ma X; Wei J; Zhou C; Helvie MA; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Lu Y
Med Phys; 2019 May; 46(5):2103-2114. PubMed ID: 30771257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of a Four-View Mammographic Image Feature Based Fusion Model to Predict Near-Term Breast Cancer Risk.
Tan M; Pu J; Cheng S; Liu H; Zheng B
Ann Biomed Eng; 2015 Oct; 43(10):2416-28. PubMed ID: 25851469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.
Harvey JA; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BA; Onega TL;
Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):752-8. PubMed ID: 23249570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Assessment of a fully automated, high-throughput mammographic density measurement tool for use with processed digital mammograms.
Couwenberg AM; Verkooijen HM; Li J; Pijnappel RM; Charaghvandi KR; Hartman M; van Gils CH
Cancer Causes Control; 2014 Aug; 25(8):1037-43. PubMed ID: 24962023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
