BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

623 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28932980)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. A deep learning method for classifying mammographic breast density categories.
    Mohamed AA; Berg WA; Peng H; Luo Y; Jankowitz RC; Wu S
    Med Phys; 2018 Jan; 45(1):314-321. PubMed ID: 29159811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Automated mammographic breast density estimation using a fully convolutional network.
    Lee J; Nishikawa RM
    Med Phys; 2018 Mar; 45(3):1178-1190. PubMed ID: 29363774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Determination of mammographic breast density using a deep convolutional neural network.
    Ciritsis A; Rossi C; Vittoria De Martini I; Eberhard M; Marcon M; Becker AS; Berger N; Boss A
    Br J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 92(1093):20180691. PubMed ID: 30209957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Classification of fatty and dense breast parenchyma: comparison of automatic volumetric density measurement and radiologists' classification and their inter-observer variation.
    Østerås BH; Martinsen AC; Brandal SH; Chaudhry KN; Eben E; Haakenaasen U; Falk RS; Skaane P
    Acta Radiol; 2016 Oct; 57(10):1178-85. PubMed ID: 26792823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison between software volumetric breast density estimates in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography images in a large public screening cohort.
    Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Fieselmann A; Lång K; Sartor H
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):330-336. PubMed ID: 29943180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations.
    Balleyguier C; Arfi-Rouche J; Boyer B; Gauthier E; Helin V; Loshkajian A; Ragusa S; Delaloge S
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Jul; 29(7):3830-3838. PubMed ID: 30770972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification.
    Sartor H; Lång K; Rosso A; Borgquist S; Zackrisson S; Timberg P
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Dec; 26(12):4354-4360. PubMed ID: 27011371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. External validation of a publicly available computer assisted diagnostic tool for mammographic mass lesions with two high prevalence research datasets.
    Benndorf M; Burnside ES; Herda C; Langer M; Kotter E
    Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4987-96. PubMed ID: 26233224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.
    Kerlikowske K; Scott CG; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Ma L; Winham S; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Malkov S; Pankratz VS; Cummings SR; Shepherd JA; Brandt KR; Miglioretti DL; Vachon CM
    Ann Intern Med; 2018 Jun; 168(11):757-765. PubMed ID: 29710124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A new method for quantitative analysis of mammographic density.
    Glide-Hurst CK; Duric N; Littrup P
    Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4491-8. PubMed ID: 18072514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Classification of mammographic breast density and its correlation with BI-RADS in elder women using machine learning approach.
    Lee ZY; Goh YLE; Lai C
    J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2022 Mar; 53(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 34801440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Breast Density Estimation with Fully Automated Volumetric Method: Comparison to Radiologists' Assessment by BI-RADS Categories.
    Singh T; Sharma M; Singla V; Khandelwal N
    Acad Radiol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):78-83. PubMed ID: 26521687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.
    Nicholson BT; LoRusso AP; Smolkin M; Bovbjerg VE; Petroni GR; Harvey JA
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Sep; 13(9):1143-9. PubMed ID: 16935726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Diagnostic accuracy of automated ACR BI-RADS breast density classification using deep convolutional neural networks.
    Sexauer R; Hejduk P; Borkowski K; Ruppert C; Weikert T; Dellas S; Schmidt N
    Eur Radiol; 2023 Jul; 33(7):4589-4596. PubMed ID: 36856841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Mammographic Breast Density Assessment Using Deep Learning: Clinical Implementation.
    Lehman CD; Yala A; Schuster T; Dontchos B; Bahl M; Swanson K; Barzilay R
    Radiology; 2019 Jan; 290(1):52-58. PubMed ID: 30325282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.
    Gard CC; Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Taplin SH; Rutter CM
    Breast J; 2015; 21(5):481-9. PubMed ID: 26133090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Variability of breast density assessment in short-term reimaging with digital mammography.
    Kim WH; Moon WK; Kim SM; Yi A; Chang JM; Koo HR; Lee SH; Cho N
    Eur J Radiol; 2013 Oct; 82(10):1724-30. PubMed ID: 23727379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 32.