316 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25172414)
1. 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]
2. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: the effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures.
Keller BM; Nathan DL; Gavenonis SC; Chen J; Conant EF; Kontos D
Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):560-8. PubMed ID: 23465381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Utility of adaptive control processing for the interpretation of digital mammograms.
Jinnouchi M; Yabuuchi H; Kubo M; Tokunaga E; Yamamoto H; Honda H
Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1297-1303. PubMed ID: 25995309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Quantitative measures confirm the inverse relationship between lesion spiculation and detection of breast masses.
Rawashdeh MA; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Borecky N; Brennan PC
Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):576-80. PubMed ID: 23477828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities.
Byng JW; Boyd NF; Fishell E; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 1994 Oct; 39(10):1629-38. PubMed ID: 15551535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Visual search of mammographic images: influence of lesion subtlety.
Krupinski EA
Acad Radiol; 2005 Aug; 12(8):965-9. PubMed ID: 16023379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
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. Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images.
Wei J; Chan HP; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Zhou C; Paquerault S; Chenevert T; Goodsitt MM
Med Phys; 2004 Apr; 31(4):933-42. PubMed ID: 15125012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Improving performance of computer-aided detection of masses by incorporating bilateral mammographic density asymmetry: an assessment.
Wang X; Li L; Xu W; Liu W; Lederman D; Zheng B
Acad Radiol; 2012 Mar; 19(3):303-10. PubMed ID: 22173323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fractal analysis of visual search activity for mass detection during mammographic screening.
Alamudun F; Yoon HJ; Hudson KB; Morin-Ducote G; Hammond T; Tourassi GD
Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):832-846. PubMed ID: 28079249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.
Rawashdeh MA; Lee WB; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard RC; Black DA; Brennan PC
Radiology; 2013 Oct; 269(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 23737538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Does mammographic density remain a radiological challenge in the digital era?
Al-Mousa DS; Rawashdeh M; Alakhras M; Spuur KM; AbuTaimai R; Brennan PC
Acta Radiol; 2021 Jun; 62(6):707-714. PubMed ID: 32623914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Influence of using manual or automatic breast density information in a mass detection CAD system.
Oliver A; Lladó X; Freixenet J; Martí R; Pérez E; Pont J; Zwiggelaar R
Acad Radiol; 2010 Jul; 17(7):877-83. PubMed ID: 20540910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.
Nicholson BT; LoRusso AP; Smolkin M; Bovbjerg VE; Petroni GR; Harvey JA
Acad Radiol; 2006 Sep; 13(9):1143-9. PubMed ID: 16935726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Factors affecting the rate of false positive marks in CAD in full-field digital mammography.
Engelken F; Bremme R; Bick U; Hammann-Kloss S; Fallenberg EM
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Aug; 81(8):e844-8. PubMed ID: 22647420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
