255 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21333490)
1. Computer-aided prognosis: predicting patient and disease outcome via quantitative fusion of multi-scale, multi-modal data.
Madabhushi A; Agner S; Basavanhally A; Doyle S; Lee G
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2011; 35(7-8):506-14. PubMed ID: 21333490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A systems-based modelling approach using transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) specimens yielded incremental prognostic significance to Gleason when predicting long-term outcome in men with localized prostate cancer.
Donovan MJ; Khan FM; Bayer-Zubek V; Powell D; Costa J; Cordon-Cardo C
BJU Int; 2012 Jan; 109(2):207-13. PubMed ID: 21733075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Computerized image-based detection and grading of lymphocytic infiltration in HER2+ breast cancer histopathology.
Basavanhally AN; Ganesan S; Agner S; Monaco JP; Feldman MD; Tomaszewski JE; Bhanot G; Madabhushi A
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2010 Mar; 57(3):642-53. PubMed ID: 19884074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A boosted Bayesian multiresolution classifier for prostate cancer detection from digitized needle biopsies.
Doyle S; Feldman M; Tomaszewski J; Madabhushi A
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2012 May; 59(5):1205-18. PubMed ID: 20570758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Integrated diagnostics: a conceptual framework with examples.
Madabhushi A; Doyle S; Lee G; Basavanhally A; Monaco J; Masters S; Tomaszewski J; Feldman M
Clin Chem Lab Med; 2010 Jul; 48(7):989-98. PubMed ID: 20491597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computational pathology: challenges and promises for tissue analysis.
Fuchs TJ; Buhmann JM
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2011; 35(7-8):515-30. PubMed ID: 21481567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Prediction of pathological stage in patients with clinical stage T1c prostate cancer: the new challenge.
Veltri RW; Miller MC; Mangold LA; O'Dowd GJ; Epstein JI; Partin AW
J Urol; 2002 Jul; 168(1):100-4. PubMed ID: 12050500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Computer-aided classification of breast cancer nuclei.
Schnorrenberg F; Pattichis CS; Schizas CN; Kyriacou K; Vassiliou M
Technol Health Care; 1996 Aug; 4(2):147-61. PubMed ID: 8885093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The role of biopsy pathology, quantitative nuclear morphometry, and biomarkers in the preoperative prediction of prostate cancer staging and prognosis.
Veltri RW; O'Dowd GJ; Orozco R; Miller MC
Semin Urol Oncol; 1998 Aug; 16(3):106-17. PubMed ID: 9741414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Expectation-maximization-driven geodesic active contour with overlap resolution (EMaGACOR): application to lymphocyte segmentation on breast cancer histopathology.
Fatakdawala H; Xu J; Basavanhally A; Bhanot G; Ganesan S; Feldman M; Tomaszewski JE; Madabhushi A
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2010 Jul; 57(7):1676-89. PubMed ID: 20172780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer?
Vis AN; Roemeling S; Kranse R; Schröder FH; van der Kwast TH
Eur Urol; 2007 Apr; 51(4):931-9. PubMed ID: 16935413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores?
Makarov DV; Sanderson H; Partin AW; Epstein JI
J Urol; 2002 Jun; 167(6):2440-2. PubMed ID: 11992053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Factors predicting prostatic biopsy Gleason sum under grading.
Stackhouse DA; Sun L; Schroeck FR; Jayachandran J; Caire AA; Acholo CO; Robertson CN; Albala DM; Polascik TJ; Donatucci CF; Maloney KE; Moul JW
J Urol; 2009 Jul; 182(1):118-22; discussion 123-4. PubMed ID: 19447436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [A preliminary research on multi-source medical image fusion].
Kang Y; Li B; Tian L; Mao Z
Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi; 2009 Apr; 26(2):244-7, 252. PubMed ID: 19499779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluating localized prostate cancer and identifying candidates for focal therapy.
Sartor AO; Hricak H; Wheeler TM; Coleman J; Penson DF; Carroll PR; Rubin MA; Scardino PT
Urology; 2008 Dec; 72(6 Suppl):S12-24. PubMed ID: 19095124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy.
Cheng L; Koch MO; Juliar BE; Daggy JK; Foster RS; Bihrle R; Gardner TA
J Clin Oncol; 2005 May; 23(13):2911-7. PubMed ID: 15860849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Automated detection of prostatic adenocarcinoma from high-resolution ex vivo MRI.
Madabhushi A; Feldman MD; Metaxas DN; Tomaszeweski J; Chute D
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2005 Dec; 24(12):1611-25. PubMed ID: 16350920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Conventional assessment of needle biopsy specimens is more useful than digital image analysis of proliferation and DNA ploidy in prediction of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy.
Sengupta S; Cheville JC; Lohse CM; Zincke H; Myers RP; Riehle DL; Pankratz VS; Blute ML; Sebo TJ
Urology; 2006 Jul; 68(1):94-8. PubMed ID: 16844452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Multi-kernel graph embedding for detection, Gleason grading of prostate cancer via MRI/MRS.
Tiwari P; Kurhanewicz J; Madabhushi A
Med Image Anal; 2013 Feb; 17(2):219-35. PubMed ID: 23294985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Do we truly see what we think we see? The role of cognitive bias in pathological interpretation.
Fandel TM; Pfnür M; Schäfer SC; Bacchetti P; Mast FW; Corinth C; Ansorge M; Melchior SW; Thüroff JW; Kirkpatrick CJ; Lehr HA
J Pathol; 2008 Oct; 216(2):193-200. PubMed ID: 18683853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
