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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18772799)

  • 1. [How to measure breast density?].
    Chopier J; Gibeault M; Salem C; Marsault C; Thomassin Naggara I
    J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 89(9 Pt 2):1151-5. PubMed ID: 18772799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
    Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Automated Breast Density Computation in Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Influence on Mean Glandular Dose and BIRADS Density Categorization.
    Castillo-García M; Chevalier M; Garayoa J; Rodriguez-Ruiz A; García-Pinto D; Valverde J
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Jul; 24(7):802-810. PubMed ID: 28214227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Imaging With Synthesized 2D Mammography: Differences, Advantages, and Pitfalls Compared With Digital Mammography.
    Zuckerman SP; Maidment ADA; Weinstein SP; McDonald ES; Conant EF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jul; 209(1):222-229. PubMed ID: 28463546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Impact of Acquisition Dose on Quantitative Breast Density Estimation with Digital Mammography: Results from ACRIN PA 4006.
    Chen L; Ray S; Keller BM; Pertuz S; McDonald ES; Conant EF; Kontos D
    Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):693-700. PubMed ID: 27002418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Variability of breast density assessment in short-term reimaging with digital mammography.
    Kim WH; Moon WK; Kim SM; Yi A; Chang JM; Koo HR; Lee SH; Cho N
    Eur J Radiol; 2013 Oct; 82(10):1724-30. PubMed ID: 23727379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality.
    Østerås BH; Skaane P; Gullien R; Martinsen ACT
    Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(3):035006. PubMed ID: 29311416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Digital and film mammography.
    Keen JD
    N Engl J Med; 2006 Feb; 354(7):765-7; author reply 765-7. PubMed ID: 16482674
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Mammographic breast density and cancer risk: the radiological view.
    Yaffe M; Boyd N
    Gynecol Endocrinol; 2005 Jul; 21 Suppl 1():6-11. PubMed ID: 16112949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Fully Automated Quantitative Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images: Preliminary Results and Comparison with Digital Mammography and MR Imaging.
    Pertuz S; McDonald ES; Weinstein SP; Conant EF; Kontos D
    Radiology; 2016 Apr; 279(1):65-74. PubMed ID: 26491909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Digital and film mammography.
    Crystal P; Strano S
    N Engl J Med; 2006 Feb; 354(7):765-7; author reply 765-7. PubMed ID: 16481649
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. A comparison of breast tissue classification techniques.
    Oliver A; Freixenet J; Martí R; Zwiggelaar R
    Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv; 2006; 9(Pt 2):872-9. PubMed ID: 17354855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Mammographic features and subsequent risk of breast cancer: a comparison of qualitative and quantitative evaluations in the Guernsey prospective studies.
    Torres-Mejía G; De Stavola B; Allen DS; Pérez-Gavilán JJ; Ferreira JM; Fentiman IS; Dos Santos Silva I
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2005 May; 14(5):1052-9. PubMed ID: 15894652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reproducibility of automated volumetric breast density assessment in short-term digital mammography reimaging.
    Ko ES; Kim RB; Han BK
    Clin Imaging; 2015; 39(4):582-6. PubMed ID: 25754139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers.
    Sadaf A; Crystal P; Scaranelo A; Helbich T
    Eur J Radiol; 2011 Mar; 77(3):457-61. PubMed ID: 19875260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammogram using multiscale curvelet transform.
    Eltoukhy MM; Faye I; Samir BB
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2010 Jun; 34(4):269-76. PubMed ID: 20004076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.