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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16723760)

  • 1. Breast composition measurements using retrospective standard mammogram form (SMF).
    Highnam R; Pan X; Warren R; Jeffreys M; Davey Smith G; Brady M
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Jun; 51(11):2695-713. PubMed ID: 16723760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparing measurements of breast density.
    Highnam R; Jeffreys M; McCormack V; Warren R; Davey Smith G; Brady M
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Oct; 52(19):5881-95. PubMed ID: 17881806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Screen-film mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a comparison of the volumetric standard mammogram form and the interactive threshold measurement methods.
    Aitken Z; McCormack VA; Highnam RP; Martin L; Gunasekara A; Melnichouk O; Mawdsley G; Peressotti C; Yaffe M; Boyd NF; dos Santos Silva I
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2010 Feb; 19(2):418-28. PubMed ID: 20142240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A volumetric method for estimation of breast density on digitized screen-film mammograms.
    Pawluczyk O; Augustine BJ; Yaffe MJ; Rico D; Yang J; Mawdsley GE; Boyd NF
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):352-64. PubMed ID: 12674236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluating the effectiveness of using standard mammogram form to predict breast cancer risk: case-control study.
    Ding J; Warren R; Warsi I; Day N; Thompson D; Brady M; Tromans C; Highnam R; Easton D
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2008 May; 17(5):1074-81. PubMed ID: 18483328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of a new and existing method of mammographic density measurement: intramethod reliability and associations with known risk factors.
    McCormack VA; Highnam R; Perry N; dos Santos Silva I
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2007 Jun; 16(6):1148-54. PubMed ID: 17548677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A mammographic image analysis method to detect and measure changes in breast density.
    Marias K; Behrenbruch C; Highnam R; Parbhoo S; Seifalian A; Brady M
    Eur J Radiol; 2004 Dec; 52(3):276-82. PubMed ID: 15544906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Breast cancer risk factors and a novel measure of volumetric breast density: cross-sectional study.
    Jeffreys M; Warren R; Highnam R; Davey Smith G
    Br J Cancer; 2008 Jan; 98(1):210-6. PubMed ID: 18087286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging.
    Shafer CM; Samei E; Lo JY
    Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):1004-16. PubMed ID: 20384236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Characterizing anatomical variability in breast CT images.
    Metheany KG; Abbey CK; Packard N; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2008 Oct; 35(10):4685-94. PubMed ID: 18975714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammogram using multiscale curvelet transform.
    Eltoukhy MM; Faye I; Samir BB
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2010 Jun; 34(4):269-76. PubMed ID: 20004076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammogram registration: a phantom-based evaluation of compressed breast thickness variation effects.
    Richard FJ; Bakić PR; Maidment AD
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2006 Feb; 25(2):188-97. PubMed ID: 16468453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
    Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography.
    Kaufhold J; Thomas JA; Eberhard JW; Galbo CE; Trotter DE
    Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1867-80. PubMed ID: 12201434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Predicting breast cancer risk using mammographic density measurements from both mammogram sides and views.
    Stone J; Ding J; Warren RM; Duffy SW
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2010 Nov; 124(2):551-4. PubMed ID: 20544272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.