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 *

191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26158085)

  • 21. In vivo measurement of the effective atomic number of breast skin using spectral mammography.
    Berggren K; Eriksson M; Hall P; Wallis MG; Fredenberg E
    Phys Med Biol; 2018 Oct; 63(21):215023. PubMed ID: 30375362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Subjective Versus Quantitative Methods of Assessing Breast Density.
    Alomaim W; O'Leary D; Ryan J; Rainford L; Evanoff M; Foley S
    Diagnostics (Basel); 2020 May; 10(5):. PubMed ID: 32455552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Type 2 diabetes and mammographic breast density among underserved women.
    Sanderson M; O'Hara H; Foderingham N; Dupont WD; Shu XO; Peterson N; Fair AM; Disher AC
    Cancer Causes Control; 2015 Feb; 26(2):303-309. PubMed ID: 25421380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Mammographic breast density in infertile and parous women.
    Letizia MM; Rita VA; Grazia SM; Valentina C; Filippo B; Diana M; Paola NM; Cesare A; Carlo F
    BMC Womens Health; 2016 Feb; 16():8. PubMed ID: 26861058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Additional Diagnostic Mammographic Views for the Evaluation of Asymmetric Mammographic Densities.
    Waheed H; Masroor I; Afzal S; Alvi MI; Jahanzeb S
    Cureus; 2020 Aug; 12(8):e9637. PubMed ID: 32923238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Semi-automated and fully automated mammographic density measurement and breast cancer risk prediction.
    Llobet R; Pollán M; Antón J; Miranda-García J; Casals M; Martínez I; Ruiz-Perales F; Pérez-Gómez B; Salas-Trejo D; Pérez-Cortés JC
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2014 Sep; 116(2):105-15. PubMed ID: 24636804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Automated Volumetric Mammographic Breast Density Measurements May Underestimate Percent Breast Density for High-density Breasts.
    Rahbar K; Gubern-Merida A; Patrie JT; Harvey JA
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Dec; 24(12):1561-1569. PubMed ID: 28754209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Cadmium and volumetric mammographic density: A cross-sectional study in Polish women.
    Pepłońska B; Janasik B; McCormack V; Bukowska-Damska A; Kałużny P
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(5):e0233369. PubMed ID: 32433664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Automated volumetric breast density estimation: a comparison with visual assessment.
    Seo JM; Ko ES; Han BK; Ko EY; Shin JH; Hahn SY
    Clin Radiol; 2013 Jul; 68(7):690-5. PubMed ID: 23434202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. To asses inter- and intra-observer variability for breast density and BIRADS assessment categories in mammographic reporting.
    Masroor I; Rasool M; Saeed SA; Sohail S
    J Pak Med Assoc; 2016 Feb; 66(2):194-7. PubMed ID: 26819167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Optimization of volumetric breast density estimation in digital mammograms.
    Holland K; Gubern-Mérida A; Mann RM; Karssemeijer N
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 May; 62(9):3779-3797. PubMed ID: 28230532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Understanding Clinical Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: a Deep Learning Perspective.
    Mohamed AA; Luo Y; Peng H; Jankowitz RC; Wu S
    J Digit Imaging; 2018 Aug; 31(4):387-392. PubMed ID: 28932980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Mammographic signs of potential relevance to breast cancer risk: the agreement of radiologists' classification.
    Jong R; Fishell E; Little L; Lockwood G; Boyd NF
    Eur J Cancer Prev; 1996 Aug; 5(4):281-6. PubMed ID: 8894565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Introduction of an automated user-independent quantitative volumetric magnetic resonance imaging breast density measurement system using the Dixon sequence: comparison with mammographic breast density assessment.
    Wengert GJ; Helbich TH; Vogl WD; Baltzer P; Langs G; Weber M; Bogner W; Gruber S; Trattnig S; Pinker K
    Invest Radiol; 2015 Feb; 50(2):73-80. PubMed ID: 25333307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A computer-assisted system for handheld whole-breast ultrasonography.
    Šroubek F; Bartoš M; Schier J; Bílková Z; Zitová B; Vydra J; Macová I; Daneš J; Lambert L
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2019 Mar; 14(3):509-516. PubMed ID: 30673925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Responding to the challenges of breast cancer in egypt and other arab countries.
    El Saghir NS
    J Egypt Natl Canc Inst; 2008 Dec; 20(4):309-12. PubMed ID: 20571588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Prostate cancer diagnosis: the feasibility of needle-based optical coherence tomography.
    Muller BG; de Bruin DM; van den Bos W; Brandt MJ; Velu JF; Bus MT; Faber DJ; Savci D; Zondervan PJ; de Reijke TM; Pes PL; de la Rosette J; van Leeuwen TG
    J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2015 Jul; 2(3):037501. PubMed ID: 26171414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.