117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17940302)
1. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses with US strain imaging.
Burnside ES; Hall TJ; Sommer AM; Hesley GK; Sisney GA; Svensson WE; Fine JP; Jiang J; Hangiandreou NJ
Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):401-10. PubMed ID: 17940302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Axial-shear strain imaging for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses.
Xu H; Rao M; Varghese T; Sommer A; Baker S; Hall TJ; Sisney GA; Burnside ES
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2010 Nov; 36(11):1813-24. PubMed ID: 20800948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessment of Functional Differences in Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions and Improvement of Diagnostic Accuracy by Using US-guided Diffuse Optical Tomography in Conjunction with Conventional US.
Zhu Q; Ricci A; Hegde P; Kane M; Cronin E; Merkulov A; Xu Y; Tavakoli B; Tannenbaum S
Radiology; 2016 Aug; 280(2):387-97. PubMed ID: 26937708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Toward AI-supported US Triage of Women with Palpable Breast Lumps in a Low-Resource Setting.
Berg WA; López Aldrete AL; Jairaj A; Ledesma Parea JC; García CY; McClennan RC; Cen SY; Larsen LH; de Lara MTS; Love S
Radiology; 2023 May; 307(4):e223351. PubMed ID: 37129492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Presentation of similar images as a reference for distinction between benign and malignant masses on mammograms: analysis of initial observer study.
Muramatsu C; Schmidt RA; Shiraishi J; Li Q; Doi K
J Digit Imaging; 2010 Oct; 23(5):592-602. PubMed ID: 20054606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Efficacy of Sonoelastography in Distinguishing Benign from Malignant Breast Masses.
Balçık A; Polat AV; Bayrak İK; Polat AK
J Breast Health; 2016 Jan; 12(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 28331729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of medical image interpretation time between conventional and automated methods of breast ultrasound.
Alves KL; Freitas R; Paulinelli RR; Borges MN
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet; 2024; 46():. PubMed ID: 38765504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Use of a commercial artificial intelligence-based mammography analysis software for improving breast ultrasound interpretations.
Kim HJ; Kim HH; Kim KH; Lee JS; Choi WJ; Chae EY; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Shim WH
Eur Radiol; 2024 Apr; ():. PubMed ID: 38570382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Emerging role of quantitative imaging (radiomics) and artificial intelligence in precision oncology.
Jha AK; Mithun S; Sherkhane UB; Dwivedi P; Puts S; Osong B; Traverso A; Purandare N; Wee L; Rangarajan V; Dekker A
Explor Target Antitumor Ther; 2023; 4(4):569-582. PubMed ID: 37720353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Multi-modality radiomics nomogram based on DCE-MRI and ultrasound images for benign and malignant breast lesion classification.
Liu X; Zhang J; Zhou J; He Y; Xu Y; Zhang Z; Cao G; Miao H; Chen Z; Zhao Y; Jin X; Wang M
Front Oncol; 2022; 12():992509. PubMed ID: 36531052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Application of Point Shearwave Elastography to Breast Ultrasonography: Initial Experience Using "S-Shearwave" in Differential Diagnosis.
Lee MH; Kim EK; Lee EJ; Kim HY; Yoon JH
Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe Chi; 2020 Jan; 81(1):157-165. PubMed ID: 36238113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The "stiff rim" sign of hepatocellular carcinoma on shear wave elastography: correlation with pathological features and potential prognostic value.
Zhong X; Chen L; Long H; Zheng R; Su L; Duan Y; Xie X; Lin M
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2022 Dec; 47(12):4115-4125. PubMed ID: 35962810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effectiveness of Quantitative Shear Wave Elastography for the Prediction of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis.
Cheng Y; Li G; Jing H; Yuan S; Zhang L; Cheng W
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med; 2022; 2022():8769889. PubMed ID: 35800003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Compression optical coherence elastography versus strain ultrasound elastography for breast cancer detection and differentiation: pilot study.
Gubarkova EV; Sovetsky AA; Vorontsov DA; Buday PA; Sirotkina MA; Plekhanov AA; Kuznetsov SS; Matveyev AL; Matveev LA; Gamayunov SV; Vorontsov AY; Zaitsev VY; Gladkova ND
Biomed Opt Express; 2022 May; 13(5):2859-2881. PubMed ID: 35774307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Characterizing Mechanical Properties of Soft Tissues Using Non-contact Displacement Measurements: How Should We Assess the Uncertainty?
Kling A; Kirkpatrick SJ; Jiang J
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2021 Mar; 11645():. PubMed ID: 35547825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A Non-invasive Method to Estimate the Stress-Strain Curve of Soft Tissue Using Ultrasound Elastography.
Wang Y; Jacobson DS; Urban MW
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2022 May; 48(5):786-807. PubMed ID: 35168849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Differentiation of benign and malignant superficial soft tissue lesions using real-time strain elastography.
Annaç G; Canyiğit M; Tan S; Akşam E; Süngü Adıyaman N; Arslan H
Turk J Med Sci; 2021 Dec; 51(6):2959-2967. PubMed ID: 34391320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions.
Turnaoğlu H; Haberal KM; Arslan S; Yavuz Çolak M; Ulu Öztürk F; Uslu N
Turk J Med Sci; 2021 Apr; 51(2):547-554. PubMed ID: 32950046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of One- and Two-Region of Interest Strain Elastography Measurements in the Differential Diagnosis of Breast Masses.
Park HJ; Kim SM; Yun B; Jang M; Kim B; Lee SH; Ahn HS
Korean J Radiol; 2020 Apr; 21(4):431-441. PubMed ID: 32193891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Neural-network-based Motion Tracking for Breast Ultrasound Strain Elastography: An Initial Assessment of Performance and Feasibility.
Peng B; Xian Y; Zhang Q; Jiang J
Ultrason Imaging; 2020 Mar; 42(2):74-91. PubMed ID: 31997720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
