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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17616811)

  • 61. Automated classification of parenchymal patterns in mammograms.
    Karssemeijer N
    Phys Med Biol; 1998 Feb; 43(2):365-78. PubMed ID: 9509532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of compressed breast thickness, applied force, and pressure distribution in screening mammography.
    Voigt M; Bolejko A; Dustler M
    Acta Radiol Open; 2021 Dec; 10(12):20584601211062078. PubMed ID: 35140983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. [Inter-rater Reliability and Cost in Pricing for Creating Dataset Focused on Mediolateral Oblique View in Mammography].
    Yagahara A; Aoki Y; Kabeya M; Ogawa A; Tanaka Y; Uesugi M
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2023; 79(11):1274-1279. PubMed ID: 37981311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Reproducibility of Wolfe's classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns.
    Toniolo P; Bleich AR; Beinart C; Koenig KL
    Prev Med; 1992 Jan; 21(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 1738761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Selected prognostic variables for mammographic parenchymal patterns.
    Buchanan JB; Weisberg BF; Sandoz JP; Gray LA; Bland KI
    Cancer; 1981 May; 47(9):2135-7. PubMed ID: 7226106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Image retrieval-based parenchymal analysis for breast cancer risk assessment.
    Padilla A; Arponen O; Rinta-Kiikka I; Pertuz S
    Med Phys; 2022 Feb; 49(2):1055-1064. PubMed ID: 34837254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Validation of DM-Scan, a computer-assisted tool to assess mammographic density in full-field digital mammograms.
    Pollán M; Llobet R; Miranda-García J; Antón J; Casals M; Martínez I; Palop C; Ruiz-Perales F; Sánchez-Contador C; Vidal C; Pérez-Gómez B; Salas-Trejo D
    Springerplus; 2013 Dec; 2(1):242. PubMed ID: 23865000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Mammographic parenchymal patterns as a risk indicator for prevalent and incident cancer.
    Krook PM; Carlile T; Bush W; Hall MH
    Cancer; 1978 Mar; 41(3):1093-7. PubMed ID: 638951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Mammographic breast density: comparison of methods for quantitative evaluation.
    Morrish OW; Tucker L; Black R; Willsher P; Duffy SW; Gilbert FJ
    Radiology; 2015 May; 275(2):356-65. PubMed ID: 25559234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis.
    McCormack VA; dos Santos Silva I
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2006 Jun; 15(6):1159-69. PubMed ID: 16775176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Consistency of visual assessments of mammographic breast density from vendor-specific "for presentation" images.
    Abdolell M; Tsuruda K; Lightfoot CB; Barkova E; McQuaid M; Caines J; Iles SE
    J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2016 Jan; 3(1):011004. PubMed ID: 26870747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Mammographic Breast Density Model Using Semi-Supervised Learning Reduces Inter-/Intra-Reader Variability.
    Watanabe AT; Retson T; Wang J; Mantey R; Chim C; Karimabadi H
    Diagnostics (Basel); 2023 Aug; 13(16):. PubMed ID: 37627953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Correcting for rater bias in scores on a continuous scale, with application to breast density.
    Sperrin M; Bardwell L; Sergeant JC; Astley S; Buchan I
    Stat Med; 2013 Nov; 32(26):4666-78. PubMed ID: 23674384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Summary measures of agreement and association between many raters' ordinal classifications.
    Mitani AA; Freer PE; Nelson KP
    Ann Epidemiol; 2017 Oct; 27(10):677-685.e4. PubMed ID: 29029991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Automated mammographic density measurement using Quantra™: comparison with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiology synoptic scale.
    Yeo I; Akwo J; Ekpo E
    J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2020 May; 7(3):035501. PubMed ID: 32509917
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Determinants of the reliability of ultrasound tomography sound speed estimates as a surrogate for volumetric breast density.
    Khodr ZG; Sak MA; Pfeiffer RM; Duric N; Littrup P; Bey-Knight L; Ali H; Vallieres P; Sherman ME; Gierach GL
    Med Phys; 2015 Oct; 42(10):5671-8. PubMed ID: 26429241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Going Beyond Conventional Mammographic Density to Discover Novel Mammogram-Based Predictors of Breast Cancer Risk.
    Hopper JL; Nguyen TL; Schmidt DF; Makalic E; Song YM; Sung J; Dite GS; Dowty JG; Li S
    J Clin Med; 2020 Feb; 9(3):. PubMed ID: 32110975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. The Rainbow Scale for Assessing Breast Ptosis: Validation of Three Different Views.
    Eyck BM; van Dongen JA; Athanassopoulos T; Bastos Martins J; Stevens HP
    Aesthet Surg J; 2016 Oct; 36(9):1010-6. PubMed ID: 27485092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Quantifying rater variation for ordinal data using a rating scale model.
    Zhang S; Petersen JH
    Stat Med; 2018 Jun; 37(14):2223-2237. PubMed ID: 29663479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Epidemiology of breast cancer--selected highlights.
    Cuzick J
    Breast; 2003 Dec; 12(6):405-11. PubMed ID: 14659113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.