242 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27670914)
1. Impact of type of full-field digital image on mammographic density assessment and breast cancer risk estimation: a case-control study.
Busana MC; Eng A; Denholm R; Dowsett M; Vinnicombe S; Allen S; Dos-Santos-Silva I
Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Sep; 18(1):96. PubMed ID: 27670914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Examination of fully automated mammographic density measures using LIBRA and breast cancer risk in a cohort of 21,000 non-Hispanic white women.
Habel LA; Alexeeff SE; Achacoso N; Arasu VA; Gastounioti A; Gerstley L; Klein RJ; Liang RY; Lipson JA; Mankowski W; Margolies LR; Rothstein JH; Rubin DL; Shen L; Sistig A; Song X; Villaseñor MA; Westley M; Whittemore AS; Yaffe MJ; Wang P; Kontos D; Sieh W
Breast Cancer Res; 2023 Aug; 25(1):92. PubMed ID: 37544983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.
Burton A; Byrnes G; Stone J; Tamimi RM; Heine J; Vachon C; Ozmen V; Pereira A; Garmendia ML; Scott C; Hipwell JH; Dickens C; Schüz J; Aribal ME; Bertrand K; Kwong A; Giles GG; Hopper J; Pérez Gómez B; Pollán M; Teo SH; Mariapun S; Taib NA; Lajous M; Lopez-Riduara R; Rice M; Romieu I; Flugelman AA; Ursin G; Qureshi S; Ma H; Lee E; Sirous R; Sirous M; Lee JW; Kim J; Salem D; Kamal R; Hartman M; Miao H; Chia KS; Nagata C; Vinayak S; Ndumia R; van Gils CH; Wanders JO; Peplonska B; Bukowska A; Allen S; Vinnicombe S; Moss S; Chiarelli AM; Linton L; Maskarinec G; Yaffe MJ; Boyd NF; Dos-Santos-Silva I; McCormack VA
Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Dec; 18(1):130. PubMed ID: 27993168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of fully and semi-automated area-based methods for measuring mammographic density and predicting breast cancer risk.
Sovio U; Li J; Aitken Z; Humphreys K; Czene K; Moss S; Hall P; McCormack V; dos-Santos-Silva I
Br J Cancer; 2014 Apr; 110(7):1908-16. PubMed ID: 24556624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Breast Cancer Risk Associations with Digital Mammographic Density by Pixel Brightness Threshold and Mammographic System.
Nguyen TL; Choi YH; Aung YK; Evans CF; Trinh NH; Li S; Dite GS; Kim MS; Brennan PC; Jenkins MA; Sung J; Song YM; Hopper JL
Radiology; 2018 Feb; 286(2):433-442. PubMed ID: 29040039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Case-control study of mammographic density and breast cancer risk using processed digital mammograms.
Habel LA; Lipson JA; Achacoso N; Rothstein JH; Yaffe MJ; Liang RY; Acton L; McGuire V; Whittemore AS; Rubin DL; Sieh W
Breast Cancer Res; 2016 May; 18(1):53. PubMed ID: 27209070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density defined by different brightness thresholds.
Nguyen TL; Aung YK; Li S; Trinh NH; Evans CF; Baglietto L; Krishnan K; Dite GS; Stone J; English DR; Song YM; Sung J; Jenkins MA; Southey MC; Giles GG; Hopper JL
Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Dec; 20(1):152. PubMed ID: 30545395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Fully Automated Volumetric Breast Density Estimation from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Gastounioti A; Pantalone L; Scott CG; Cohen EA; Wu FF; Winham SJ; Jensen MR; Maidment ADA; Vachon CM; Conant EF; Kontos D
Radiology; 2021 Dec; 301(3):561-568. PubMed ID: 34519572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. A comprehensive tool for measuring mammographic density changes over time.
Eriksson M; Li J; Leifland K; Czene K; Hall P
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Jun; 169(2):371-379. PubMed ID: 29392583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessment of a fully automated, high-throughput mammographic density measurement tool for use with processed digital mammograms.
Couwenberg AM; Verkooijen HM; Li J; Pijnappel RM; Charaghvandi KR; Hartman M; van Gils CH
Cancer Causes Control; 2014 Aug; 25(8):1037-43. PubMed ID: 24962023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Breast parenchymal patterns in processed versus raw digital mammograms: A large population study toward assessing differences in quantitative measures across image representations.
Gastounioti A; Oustimov A; Keller BM; Pantalone L; Hsieh MK; Conant EF; Kontos D
Med Phys; 2016 Nov; 43(11):5862. PubMed ID: 27806604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Adjusting for BMI in analyses of volumetric mammographic density and breast cancer risk.
Hudson S; Vik Hjerkind K; Vinnicombe S; Allen S; Trewin C; Ursin G; Dos-Santos-Silva I; De Stavola BL
Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Dec; 20(1):156. PubMed ID: 30594212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Body mass index, mammographic density, and breast cancer risk by estrogen receptor subtype.
Shieh Y; Scott CG; Jensen MR; Norman AD; Bertrand KA; Pankratz VS; Brandt KR; Visscher DW; Shepherd JA; Tamimi RM; Vachon CM; Kerlikowske K
Breast Cancer Res; 2019 Apr; 21(1):48. PubMed ID: 30944014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
