176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26031229)
1. Breast density evaluation using spectral mammography, radiologist reader assessment, and segmentation techniques: a retrospective study based on left and right breast comparison.
Molloi S; Ding H; Feig S
Acad Radiol; 2015 Aug; 22(8):1052-9. PubMed ID: 26031229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Postmortem validation of breast density using dual-energy mammography.
Molloi S; Ducote JL; Ding H; Feig SA
Med Phys; 2014 Aug; 41(8):081917. PubMed ID: 25086548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Quantification of breast density with dual energy mammography: an experimental feasibility study.
Ducote JL; Molloi S
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):793-801. PubMed ID: 20229889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study.
Skaane P; Gullien R; Eben EB; Sandhaug M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Stoeblen F
Acta Radiol; 2015 Apr; 56(4):404-12. PubMed ID: 24682405
[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. Quantitative assessment of breast density from digitized mammograms into Tabar's patterns.
Jamal N; Ng KH; Looi LM; McLean D; Zulfiqar A; Tan SP; Liew WF; Shantini A; Ranganathan S
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(22):5843-57. PubMed ID: 17068368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Computer-aided diagnosis for preoperative invasion depth of gastric cancer with dual-energy spectral CT imaging.
Li C; Shi C; Zhang H; Hui C; Lam KM; Zhang S
Acad Radiol; 2015 Feb; 22(2):149-57. PubMed ID: 25249448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Automated effect-specific mammographic pattern measures.
Raundahl J; Loog M; Pettersen P; Tanko LB; Nielsen M
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2008 Aug; 27(8):1054-60. PubMed ID: 18672423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers.
Sadaf A; Crystal P; Scaranelo A; Helbich T
Eur J Radiol; 2011 Mar; 77(3):457-61. PubMed ID: 19875260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Quantifying effect-specific mammographic density.
Raundahl J; Loog M; Pettersen P; Nielsen M
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv; 2007; 10(Pt 2):580-7. PubMed ID: 18044615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Error analysis of calibration materials on dual-energy mammography.
Mou X; Chen X
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv; 2007; 10(Pt 2):596-603. PubMed ID: 18044617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reliability of Computer-Assisted Breast Density Estimation: Comparison of Interactive Thresholding, Semiautomated, and Fully Automated Methods.
Kang E; Lee EJ; Jang M; Kim SM; Kim Y; Chun M; Tai JH; Han W; Kim SW; Kim JH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jul; 207(1):126-34. PubMed ID: 27187523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Dual-energy digital mammography: calibration and inverse-mapping techniques to estimate calcification thickness and glandular-tissue ratio.
Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2003 Jun; 30(6):1110-7. PubMed ID: 12852535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
