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 *

242 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23289950)

  • 1. Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data.
    Vachon CM; Fowler EE; Tiffenberg G; Scott CG; Pankratz VS; Sellers TA; Heine JJ
    Breast Cancer Res; 2013 Jan; 15(1):R1. PubMed ID: 23289950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Case-control study of mammographic density and breast cancer risk using processed digital mammograms.
    Habel LA; Lipson JA; Achacoso N; Rothstein JH; Yaffe MJ; Liang RY; Acton L; McGuire V; Whittemore AS; Rubin DL; Sieh W
    Breast Cancer Res; 2016 May; 18(1):53. PubMed ID: 27209070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Evaluation of LIBRA Software for Fully Automated Mammographic Density Assessment in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.
    Gastounioti A; Kasi CD; Scott CG; Brandt KR; Jensen MR; Hruska CB; Wu FF; Norman AD; Conant EF; Winham SJ; Kerlikowske K; Kontos D; Vachon CM
    Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):24-31. PubMed ID: 32396041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Impact of type of full-field digital image on mammographic density assessment and breast cancer risk estimation: a case-control study.
    Busana MC; Eng A; Denholm R; Dowsett M; Vinnicombe S; Allen S; Dos-Santos-Silva I
    Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Sep; 18(1):96. PubMed ID: 27670914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Preliminary evaluation of the publicly available Laboratory for Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software tool: comparison of fully automated area and volumetric density measures in a case-control study with digital mammography.
    Keller BM; Chen J; Daye D; Conant EF; Kontos D
    Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Aug; 17():117. PubMed ID: 26303303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Full field digital mammography and breast density: comparison of calibrated and noncalibrated measurements.
    Heine JJ; Fowler EE; Flowers CI
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Nov; 18(11):1430-6. PubMed ID: 21971260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.
    Burton A; Byrnes G; Stone J; Tamimi RM; Heine J; Vachon C; Ozmen V; Pereira A; Garmendia ML; Scott C; Hipwell JH; Dickens C; Schüz J; Aribal ME; Bertrand K; Kwong A; Giles GG; Hopper J; Pérez Gómez B; Pollán M; Teo SH; Mariapun S; Taib NA; Lajous M; Lopez-Riduara R; Rice M; Romieu I; Flugelman AA; Ursin G; Qureshi S; Ma H; Lee E; Sirous R; Sirous M; Lee JW; Kim J; Salem D; Kamal R; Hartman M; Miao H; Chia KS; Nagata C; Vinayak S; Ndumia R; van Gils CH; Wanders JO; Peplonska B; Bukowska A; Allen S; Vinnicombe S; Moss S; Chiarelli AM; Linton L; Maskarinec G; Yaffe MJ; Boyd NF; Dos-Santos-Silva I; McCormack VA
    Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Dec; 18(1):130. PubMed ID: 27993168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods.
    Eng A; Gallant Z; Shepherd J; McCormack V; Li J; Dowsett M; Vinnicombe S; Allen S; dos-Santos-Silva I
    Breast Cancer Res; 2014 Sep; 16(5):439. PubMed ID: 25239205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors: automated measurement development for full field digital mammography.
    Fowler EE; Sellers TA; Lu B; Heine JJ
    Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):113502. PubMed ID: 24320473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The influence of mammogram acquisition on the mammographic density and breast cancer association in the Mayo Mammography Health Study cohort.
    Olson JE; Sellers TA; Scott CG; Schueler BA; Brandt KR; Serie DJ; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Morton MJ; Heine JJ; Couch FJ; Pankratz VS; Vachon CM
    Breast Cancer Res; 2012 Nov; 14(6):R147. PubMed ID: 23152984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An automated approach for estimation of breast density.
    Heine JJ; Carston MJ; Scott CG; Brandt KR; Wu FF; Pankratz VS; Sellers TA; Vachon CM
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2008 Nov; 17(11):3090-7. PubMed ID: 18990749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness threshold better predicts breast cancer risk for full-field digital mammograms.
    Nguyen TL; Aung YK; Evans CF; Yoon-Ho C; Jenkins MA; Sung J; Hopper JL; Song YM
    Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Nov; 17():142. PubMed ID: 26581435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Pectoral muscle attenuation as a marker for breast cancer risk in full-field digital mammography.
    Cheddad A; Czene K; Hall P; Humphreys K
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2015 Jun; 24(6):985-91. PubMed ID: 25870223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mammographic texture resemblance generalizes as an independent risk factor for breast cancer.
    Nielsen M; Vachon CM; Scott CG; Chernoff K; Karemore G; Karssemeijer N; Lillholm M; Karsdal MA
    Breast Cancer Res; 2014 Apr; 16(2):R37. PubMed ID: 24713478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Inter-observer agreement according to three methods of evaluating mammographic density and parenchymal pattern in a case control study: impact on relative risk of breast cancer.
    Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Diao P; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
    BMC Cancer; 2015 Apr; 15():274. PubMed ID: 25884160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS.
    Jeffers AM; Sieh W; Lipson JA; Rothstein JH; McGuire V; Whittemore AS; Rubin DL
    Radiology; 2017 Feb; 282(2):348-355. PubMed ID: 27598536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reproductive Factors and Mammographic Density: Associations Among 24,840 Women and Comparison of Studies Using Digitized Film-Screen Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography.
    Alexeeff SE; Odo NU; McBride R; McGuire V; Achacoso N; Rothstein JH; Lipson JA; Liang RY; Acton L; Yaffe MJ; Whittemore AS; Rubin DL; Sieh W; Habel LA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2019 Jun; 188(6):1144-1154. PubMed ID: 30865217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection.
    Chiarelli AM; Prummel MV; Muradali D; Shumak RS; Majpruz V; Brown P; Jiang H; Done SJ; Yaffe MJ
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Nov; 154(2):377-87. PubMed ID: 26518019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.