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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23477828)

  • 41. [Retrospective analysis of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system in full-field digital mammography in correlation to tumor histology].
    Obenauer S; Sohns C; Werner C; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 2005 Aug; 177(8):1103-9. PubMed ID: 16021542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Computer-aided detection system performance on current and previous digital mammograms in patients with contralateral metachronous breast cancer.
    Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Chang JM
    Acta Radiol; 2012 May; 53(4):376-81. PubMed ID: 22403080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Mammography segmentation with maximum likelihood active contours.
    Rahmati P; Adler A; Hamarneh G
    Med Image Anal; 2012 Aug; 16(6):1167-86. PubMed ID: 22831774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Computer-aided characterization of mammographic masses: accuracy of mass segmentation and its effects on characterization.
    Sahiner B; Petrick N; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Paramagul C; Helvie MA; Gurcan MN
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1275-84. PubMed ID: 11811827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Hybrid segmentation of mass in mammograms using template matching and dynamic programming.
    Song E; Xu S; Xu X; Zeng J; Lan Y; Zhang S; Hung CC
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Nov; 17(11):1414-24. PubMed ID: 20817575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Improved location features for linkage of regions across ipsilateral mammograms.
    Tanner C; van Schie G; Lesniak JM; Karssemeijer N; Székely G
    Med Image Anal; 2013 Dec; 17(8):1265-72. PubMed ID: 23731758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. An anatomically oriented breast coordinate system for mammogram analysis.
    Brandt SS; Karemore G; Karssemeijer N; Nielsen M
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2011 Oct; 30(10):1841-51. PubMed ID: 21609879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening.
    Roelofs AA; Karssemeijer N; Wedekind N; Beck C; van Woudenberg S; Snoeren PR; Hendriks JH; Rosselli del Turco M; Bjurstam N; Junkermann H; Beijerinck D; Séradour B; Evertsz CJ
    Radiology; 2007 Jan; 242(1):70-7. PubMed ID: 17185661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Symmetry of projection in the quantitative analysis of mammographic images.
    Byng JW; Boyd NF; Little L; Lockwood G; Fishell E; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
    Eur J Cancer Prev; 1996 Oct; 5(5):319-27. PubMed ID: 8972250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Integrated density of a lesion: a quantitative, mammographically derived, invariable measure.
    Chang YH; Good WF; Leader JK; Wang XH; Zheng B; Hardesty LA; Hakim CM; Gur D
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1805-11. PubMed ID: 12906198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Evaluation of the effect of zoom function on lesion detection by soft-copy reading of screening mammograms.
    Trieu PD; Brennan P; Giuffre B; Mello-Thoms C; Tapia K; Santangelo N; Kim H; Cameron K; Hayter C; Da Costa G; Sterba J; Lee W
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2015 Jun; 59(3):292-9. PubMed ID: 25828255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Comparison of power spectra for tomosynthesis projections and reconstructed images.
    Engstrom E; Reiser I; Nishikawa R
    Med Phys; 2009 May; 36(5):1753-8. PubMed ID: 19544793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Analysis of spiculation in the computerized classification of mammographic masses.
    Huo Z; Giger ML; Vyborny CJ; Bick U; Lu P; Wolverton DE; Schmidt RA
    Med Phys; 1995 Oct; 22(10):1569-79. PubMed ID: 8551981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Comparison of algorithms to enhance spicules of spiculated masses on mammography.
    Sampat MP; Whitman GJ; Bovik AC; Markey MK
    J Digit Imaging; 2008 Mar; 21(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 17431720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Detection of masses in mammogram images using CNN, geostatistic functions and SVM.
    Sampaio WB; Diniz EM; Silva AC; de Paiva AC; Gattass M
    Comput Biol Med; 2011 Aug; 41(8):653-64. PubMed ID: 21703605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Comparison of a new and existing method of mammographic density measurement: intramethod reliability and associations with known risk factors.
    McCormack VA; Highnam R; Perry N; dos Santos Silva I
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2007 Jun; 16(6):1148-54. PubMed ID: 17548677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Comparing measurements of breast density.
    Highnam R; Jeffreys M; McCormack V; Warren R; Davey Smith G; Brady M
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Oct; 52(19):5881-95. PubMed ID: 17881806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. An investigation into the mammographic appearances of missed breast cancers when recall rates are reduced.
    Mohd Norsuddin N; Mello-Thoms C; Reed W; Rickard M; Lewis S
    Br J Radiol; 2017 Aug; 90(1076):20170048. PubMed ID: 28621548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Certain performance values arising from mammographic test set readings correlate well with clinical audit.
    Soh BP; Lee WB; Mello-Thoms C; Tapia K; Ryan J; Hung WT; Thompson G; Heard R; Brennan P
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2015 Aug; 59(4):403-410. PubMed ID: 25828554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. In the digital era, architectural distortion remains a challenging radiological task.
    Suleiman WI; McEntee MF; Lewis SJ; Rawashdeh MA; Georgian-Smith D; Heard R; Tapia K; Brennan PC
    Clin Radiol; 2016 Jan; 71(1):e35-40. PubMed ID: 26602930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.