154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17068368)
1. Quantitative assessment of breast density from digitized mammograms into Tabar's patterns.
Jamal N; Ng KH; Looi LM; McLean D; Zulfiqar A; Tan SP; Liew WF; Shantini A; Ranganathan S
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(22):5843-57. PubMed ID: 17068368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Automated effect-specific mammographic pattern measures.
Raundahl J; Loog M; Pettersen P; Tanko LB; Nielsen M
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2008 Aug; 27(8):1054-60. PubMed ID: 18672423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities.
Byng JW; Boyd NF; Fishell E; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 1994 Oct; 39(10):1629-38. PubMed ID: 15551535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Percentage density, Wolfe's and Tabár's mammographic patterns: agreement and association with risk factors for breast cancer.
Gram IT; Bremnes Y; Ursin G; Maskarinec G; Bjurstam N; Lund E
Breast Cancer Res; 2005; 7(5):R854-61. PubMed ID: 16168132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Factors affecting the rate of false positive marks in CAD in full-field digital mammography.
Engelken F; Bremme R; Bick U; Hammann-Kloss S; Fallenberg EM
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Aug; 81(8):e844-8. PubMed ID: 22647420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Inter-observer agreement according to three methods of evaluating mammographic density and parenchymal pattern in a case control study: impact on relative risk of breast cancer.
Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Diao P; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
BMC Cancer; 2015 Apr; 15():274. PubMed ID: 25884160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quantifying effect-specific mammographic density.
Raundahl J; Loog M; Pettersen P; Nielsen M
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv; 2007; 10(Pt 2):580-7. PubMed ID: 18044615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Computerized nipple identification for multiple image analysis in computer-aided diagnosis.
Zhou C; Chan HP; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Petrick N
Med Phys; 2004 Oct; 31(10):2871-82. PubMed ID: 15543797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast image pre-processing for mammographic tissue segmentation.
He W; Hogg P; Juette A; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
Comput Biol Med; 2015 Dec; 67():61-73. PubMed ID: 26498046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Digitizing and consolidating mammograms and other images for teaching applications.
Bassignani MJ; LoRusso AP; Harvey JA
Acad Radiol; 2006 Jun; 13(6):774-81. PubMed ID: 16679282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Automated classification of breast parenchymal density: topologic analysis of x-ray attenuation patterns depicted with digital mammography.
Boehm HF; Schneider T; Buhmann-Kirchhoff SM; Schlossbauer T; Rjosk-Dendorfer D; Britsch S; Reiser M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Dec; 191(6):W275-82. PubMed ID: 19020215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Breast cancer risk analysis based on a novel segmentation framework for digital mammograms.
Chen X; Moschidis E; Taylor C; Astley S
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv; 2014; 17(Pt 1):536-43. PubMed ID: 25333160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Computerized detection of breast tissue asymmetry depicted on bilateral mammograms: a preliminary study of breast risk stratification.
Wang X; Lederman D; Tan J; Wang XH; Zheng B
Acad Radiol; 2010 Oct; 17(10):1234-41. PubMed ID: 20619697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Identification of the breast edge using areas enclosed by iso-intensity contours.
Padayachee J; Alport MJ; Rae WI
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2007 Sep; 31(6):390-400. PubMed ID: 17398069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dynamic multiple thresholding breast boundary detection algorithm for mammograms.
Wu YT; Zhou C; Chan HP; Paramagul C; Hadjiiski LM; Daly CP; Douglas JA; Zhang Y; Sahiner B; Shi J; Wei J
Med Phys; 2010 Jan; 37(1):391-401. PubMed ID: 20175501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns.
Al Mousa DS; Brennan PC; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Tan J; Mello-Thoms C
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1386-93. PubMed ID: 25172414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images.
Wei J; Chan HP; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Zhou C; Paquerault S; Chenevert T; Goodsitt MM
Med Phys; 2004 Apr; 31(4):933-42. PubMed ID: 15125012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Clinical comparison of a novel breast DXA technique to mammographic density.
Shepherd JA; Herve L; Landau J; Fan B; Kerlikowske K; Cummings SR
Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1490-8. PubMed ID: 16752583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
