212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25870223)
1. 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]
2. Enhancement of mammographic density measures in breast cancer risk prediction.
Cheddad A; Czene K; Shepherd JA; Li J; Hall P; Humphreys K
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2014 Jul; 23(7):1314-23. PubMed ID: 24722754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Automated measurement of volumetric mammographic density: a tool for widespread breast cancer risk assessment.
Brand JS; Czene K; Shepherd JA; Leifland K; Heddson B; Sundbom A; Eriksson M; Li J; Humphreys K; Hall P
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2014 Sep; 23(9):1764-72. PubMed ID: 25012995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer in Korean women.
Kim BK; Choi YH; Nguyen TL; Nam SJ; Lee JE; Hopper JL; Sung J; Song YM
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2015 Sep; 24(5):422-9. PubMed ID: 25370685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Area and volumetric density estimation in processed full-field digital mammograms for risk assessment of breast cancer.
Cheddad A; Czene K; Eriksson M; Li J; Easton D; Hall P; Humphreys K
PLoS One; 2014; 9(10):e110690. PubMed ID: 25329322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. A New Breast Border Extraction and Contrast Enhancement Technique with Digital Mammogram Images for Improved Detection of Breast Cancer.
Hazarika M; Mahanta LB
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2018 Aug; 19(8):2141-2148. PubMed ID: 30139217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Automatic Detection of Pectoral Muscle Region for Computer-Aided Diagnosis Using MIAS Mammograms.
Yoon WB; Oh JE; Chae EY; Kim HH; Lee SY; Kim KG
Biomed Res Int; 2016; 2016():5967580. PubMed ID: 27847817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison between two packages for pectoral muscle removal on mammographic images.
Sansone M; Marrone S; Di Salvio G; Belfiore MP; Gatta G; Fusco R; Vanore L; Zuiani C; Grassi F; Vietri MT; Granata V; Grassi R
Radiol Med; 2022 Aug; 127(8):848-856. PubMed ID: 35816260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Geometry-Based Pectoral Muscle Segmentation From MLO Mammogram Views.
Taghanaki SA; Liu Y; Miles B; Hamarneh G
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2017 Nov; 64(11):2662-2671. PubMed ID: 28129144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Automated pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms: Comparison of deep neural network to conventional computer vision.
Ma X; Wei J; Zhou C; Helvie MA; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Lu Y
Med Phys; 2019 May; 46(5):2103-2114. PubMed ID: 30771257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns on a large clinical dataset of full-field digital mammograms: robustness study with two high-risk datasets.
Li H; Giger ML; Lan L; Bancroft Brown J; MacMahon A; Mussman M; Olopade OI; Sennett C
J Digit Imaging; 2012 Oct; 25(5):591-8. PubMed ID: 22246204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density.
Holm J; Humphreys K; Li J; Ploner A; Cheddad A; Eriksson M; Törnberg S; Hall P; Czene K
J Clin Oncol; 2015 Mar; 33(9):1030-7. PubMed ID: 25646195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
