632 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25851469)
21. Prediction of breast cancer risk using a machine learning approach embedded with a locality preserving projection algorithm.
Heidari M; Khuzani AZ; Hollingsworth AB; Danala G; Mirniaharikandehei S; Qiu Y; Liu H; Zheng B
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(3):035020. PubMed ID: 29239858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Development and Assessment of a New Global Mammographic Image Feature Analysis Scheme to Predict Likelihood of Malignant Cases.
Heidari M; Mirniaharikandehei S; Liu W; Hollingsworth AB; Liu H; Zheng B
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2020 Apr; 39(4):1235-1244. PubMed ID: 31603818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Global parenchymal texture features based on histograms of oriented gradients improve cancer development risk estimation from healthy breasts.
Pérez-Benito FJ; Signol F; Pérez-Cortés JC; Pollán M; Pérez-Gómez B; Salas-Trejo D; Casals M; Martínez I; LLobet R
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2019 Aug; 177():123-132. PubMed ID: 31319940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Computer-aided detection in digital mammography: comparison of craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique, and mediolateral views.
Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Cha JH; Kim SM; Im JG
Radiology; 2006 Dec; 241(3):695-701. PubMed ID: 17114620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A novel method of determining breast cancer risk using parenchymal textural analysis of mammography images on an Asian cohort.
Tan M; Mariapun S; Yip CH; Ng KH; Teo SH
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Jan; 64(3):035016. PubMed ID: 30577031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Applying a new bilateral mammographic density segmentation method to improve accuracy of breast cancer risk prediction.
Yan S; Wang Y; Aghaei F; Qiu Y; Zheng B
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2017 Oct; 12(10):1819-1828. PubMed ID: 28726117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Using automated texture features to determine the probability for masking of a tumor on mammography, but not ultrasound.
Häberle L; Hack CC; Heusinger K; Wagner F; Jud SM; Uder M; Beckmann MW; Schulz-Wendtland R; Wittenberg T; Fasching PA
Eur J Med Res; 2017 Aug; 22(1):30. PubMed ID: 28854966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Applying a new quantitative image analysis scheme based on global mammographic features to assist diagnosis of breast cancer.
Chen X; Zargari A; Hollingsworth AB; Liu H; Zheng B; Qiu Y
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2019 Oct; 179():104995. PubMed ID: 31443864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Mammographic density and structural features can individually and jointly contribute to breast cancer risk assessment in mammography screening: a case-control study.
Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Petersen K; Lillholm M; Nielsen MB; Lynge E; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
BMC Cancer; 2016 Jul; 16():414. PubMed ID: 27387546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A multi-stage fusion framework to classify breast lesions using deep learning and radiomics features computed from four-view mammograms.
Jones MA; Sadeghipour N; Chen X; Islam W; Zheng B
Med Phys; 2023 Dec; 50(12):7670-7683. PubMed ID: 37083190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. [Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection (CAD) of breast cancer].
Yang KY; Liu XJ; Zhai RY
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2012 May; 34(5):360-3. PubMed ID: 22883457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of a Deep Learning Risk Score and Standard Mammographic Density Score for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.
Dembrower K; Liu Y; Azizpour H; Eklund M; Smith K; Lindholm P; Strand F
Radiology; 2020 Feb; 294(2):265-272. PubMed ID: 31845842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Deep learning modeling using normal mammograms for predicting breast cancer risk.
Arefan D; Mohamed AA; Berg WA; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Wu S
Med Phys; 2020 Jan; 47(1):110-118. PubMed ID: 31667873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Applying a new maximum local asymmetry feature analysis method to improve near-term breast cancer risk prediction.
Yan S; Zhang L; Song C
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Oct; 63(20):205010. PubMed ID: 30255850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Bilateral mammographic density asymmetry and breast cancer risk: a preliminary assessment.
Zheng B; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Wang X; Klym AH; Gur D
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 81(11):3222-8. PubMed ID: 22579527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Deep learning networks find unique mammographic differences in previous negative mammograms between interval and screen-detected cancers: a case-case study.
Hinton B; Ma L; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Malkov S; Fan B; Greenwood H; Joe B; Lee V; Kerlikowske K; Shepherd J
Cancer Imaging; 2019 Jun; 19(1):41. PubMed ID: 31228956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Derived mammographic masking measures based on simulated lesions predict the risk of interval cancer after controlling for known risk factors: a case-case analysis.
Hinton B; Ma L; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Malkov S; Fan B; Greenwood H; Joe B; Lee V; Strand F; Kerlikowske K; Shepherd J
Med Phys; 2019 Mar; 46(3):1309-1316. PubMed ID: 30697755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A new computer-aided detection approach based on analysis of local and global mammographic feature asymmetry.
Kelder A; Lederman D; Zheng B; Zigel Y
Med Phys; 2018 Apr; 45(4):1459-1470. PubMed ID: 29431858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
