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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17548677)

  • 41. Automated measurement of volumetric mammographic density: a tool for widespread breast cancer risk assessment.
    Brand JS; Czene K; Shepherd JA; Leifland K; Heddson B; Sundbom A; Eriksson M; Li J; Humphreys K; Hall P
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2014 Sep; 23(9):1764-72. PubMed ID: 25012995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: evaluation of a novel method of measuring breast tissue volumes.
    Boyd N; Martin L; Gunasekara A; Melnichouk O; Maudsley G; Peressotti C; Yaffe M; Minkin S
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2009 Jun; 18(6):1754-62. PubMed ID: 19505909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Parenchymal texture analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer risk estimation: a preliminary study.
    Kontos D; Bakic PR; Carton AK; Troxel AB; Conant EF; Maidment AD
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Mar; 16(3):283-98. PubMed ID: 19201357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Quantitative measures confirm the inverse relationship between lesion spiculation and detection of breast masses.
    Rawashdeh MA; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Borecky N; Brennan PC
    Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):576-80. PubMed ID: 23477828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Longitudinal trends in mammographic percent density and breast cancer risk.
    Vachon CM; Pankratz VS; Scott CG; Maloney SD; Ghosh K; Brandt KR; Milanese T; Carston MJ; Sellers TA
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2007 May; 16(5):921-8. PubMed ID: 17507617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Digital Mammography versus Breast Tomosynthesis: Impact of Breast Density on Diagnostic Performance in Population-based Screening.
    Østerås BH; Martinsen ACT; Gullien R; Skaane P
    Radiology; 2019 Oct; 293(1):60-68. PubMed ID: 31407968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Volumetric breast density from full-field digital mammograms and its association with breast cancer risk factors: a comparison with a threshold method.
    Lokate M; Kallenberg MG; Karssemeijer N; Van den Bosch MA; Peeters PH; Van Gils CH
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2010 Dec; 19(12):3096-105. PubMed ID: 20921336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Applying a new bilateral mammographic density segmentation method to improve accuracy of breast cancer risk prediction.
    Yan S; Wang Y; Aghaei F; Qiu Y; Zheng B
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2017 Oct; 12(10):1819-1828. PubMed ID: 28726117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. An automated approach for estimation of breast density.
    Heine JJ; Carston MJ; Scott CG; Brandt KR; Wu FF; Pankratz VS; Sellers TA; Vachon CM
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2008 Nov; 17(11):3090-7. PubMed ID: 18990749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. Mammographic density using two computer-based methods in an isoflavone trial.
    Kataoka M; Atkinson C; Warren R; Sala E; Day NE; Highnam R; Warsi I; Bingham SA
    Maturitas; 2008 Apr; 59(4):350-7. PubMed ID: 18495387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.
    Kerlikowske K; Scott CG; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Ma L; Winham S; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Malkov S; Pankratz VS; Cummings SR; Shepherd JA; Brandt KR; Miglioretti DL; Vachon CM
    Ann Intern Med; 2018 Jun; 168(11):757-765. PubMed ID: 29710124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Combining two mammographic projections in a computer aided mass detection method.
    van Engeland S; Karssemeijer N
    Med Phys; 2007 Mar; 34(3):898-905. PubMed ID: 17441235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial.
    Hofvind S; Holen ÅS; Aase HS; Houssami N; Sebuødegård S; Moger TA; Haldorsen IS; Akslen LA
    Lancet Oncol; 2019 Jun; 20(6):795-805. PubMed ID: 31078459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Statistical evaluation of a fully automated mammographic breast density algorithm.
    Abdolell M; Tsuruda K; Schaller G; Caines J
    Comput Math Methods Med; 2013; 2013():651091. PubMed ID: 23737861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
    Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. A registration framework for the comparison of mammogram sequences.
    Marias K; Behrenbruch C; Parbhoo S; Seifalian A; Brady M
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2005 Jun; 24(6):782-90. PubMed ID: 15957600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.