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 *

232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17671343)

  • 1. Computing mammographic density from a multiple regression model constructed with image-acquisition parameters from a full-field digital mammographic unit.
    Lu LJ; Nishino TK; Khamapirad T; Grady JJ; Leonard MH; Brunder DG
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Aug; 52(16):4905-21. PubMed ID: 17671343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: the effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures.
    Keller BM; Nathan DL; Gavenonis SC; Chen J; Conant EF; Kontos D
    Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):560-8. PubMed ID: 23465381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Improving performance of computer-aided detection of masses by incorporating bilateral mammographic density asymmetry: an assessment.
    Wang X; Li L; Xu W; Liu W; Lederman D; Zheng B
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Mar; 19(3):303-10. PubMed ID: 22173323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Automated Percentage of Breast Density Measurements for Full-field Digital Mammography Applications.
    Fowler EE; Vachon CM; Scott CG; Sellers TA; Heine JJ
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Aug; 21(8):958-70. PubMed ID: 25018067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Gray scale registration of mammograms using a model of image acquisition.
    Snoeren PR; Karssemeijer N
    Inf Process Med Imaging; 2003 Jul; 18():401-12. PubMed ID: 15344475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Can mammographic assessments lead to consider density as a risk factor for breast cancer?
    Colin C; Prince V; Valette PJ
    Eur J Radiol; 2013 Mar; 82(3):404-11. PubMed ID: 20133095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Dual-energy digital mammography: calibration and inverse-mapping techniques to estimate calcification thickness and glandular-tissue ratio.
    Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2003 Jun; 30(6):1110-7. PubMed ID: 12852535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Linearization of mammograms using parameters derived from noise characteristics.
    Karssemeijer N; Snoeren PR; Zhang W
    Inf Process Med Imaging; 2005; 19():258-69. PubMed ID: 17354701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Markov random field-based clustering applied to the segmentation of masses in digital mammograms.
    Suliga M; Deklerck R; Nyssen E
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2008 Sep; 32(6):502-12. PubMed ID: 18620842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Influence of using manual or automatic breast density information in a mass detection CAD system.
    Oliver A; Lladó X; Freixenet J; Martí R; Pérez E; Pont J; Zwiggelaar R
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Jul; 17(7):877-83. PubMed ID: 20540910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.