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.
154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30893476)
21. Comparison of variability in breast density assessment by BI-RADS category according to the level of experience. Eom HJ; Cha JH; Kang JW; Choi WJ; Kim HJ; Go E Acta Radiol; 2018 May; 59(5):527-532. PubMed ID: 28766978 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Deformable mapping technique to correlate lesions in digital breast tomosynthesis and automated breast ultrasound images. Green CA; Goodsitt MM; Brock KK; Davis CL; Larson ED; Lau JH; Carson PL Med Phys; 2018 Oct; 45(10):4402-4417. PubMed ID: 30066340 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. An unsupervised automatic segmentation algorithm for breast tissue classification of dedicated breast computed tomography images. Caballo M; Boone JM; Mann R; Sechopoulos I Med Phys; 2018 Jun; 45(6):2542-2559. PubMed ID: 29676025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparison of subjective and fully automated methods for measuring mammographic density. Moshina N; Roman M; Sebuødegård S; Waade GG; Ursin G; Hofvind S Acta Radiol; 2018 Feb; 59(2):154-160. PubMed ID: 28565960 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Fully automated segmentation of whole breast using dynamic programming in dynamic contrast enhanced MR images. Jiang L; Hu X; Xiao Q; Gu Y; Li Q Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2400-2414. PubMed ID: 28375584 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Medical breast ultrasound image segmentation by machine learning. Xu Y; Wang Y; Yuan J; Cheng Q; Wang X; Carson PL Ultrasonics; 2019 Jan; 91():1-9. PubMed ID: 30029074 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Mammographic density and structural features can individually and jointly contribute to breast cancer risk assessment in mammography screening: a case-control study. Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Petersen K; Lillholm M; Nielsen MB; Lynge E; Uldall WY; Vejborg I BMC Cancer; 2016 Jul; 16():414. PubMed ID: 27387546 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A prospective comparative trial of adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts (ASTOUND-2). Tagliafico AS; Mariscotti G; Valdora F; Durando M; Nori J; La Forgia D; Rosenberg I; Caumo F; Gandolfo N; Sormani MP; Signori A; Calabrese M; Houssami N Eur J Cancer; 2018 Nov; 104():39-46. PubMed ID: 30316869 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Sound-speed image reconstruction in sparse-aperture 3-D ultrasound transmission tomography. Jirík R; Peterlík I; Ruiter N; Fousek J; Dapp R; Zapf M; Jan J IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2012 Feb; 59(2):254-64. PubMed ID: 24626033 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Quantitative breast density analysis using tomosynthesis and comparison with MRI and digital mammography. Moon WK; Chang JF; Lo CM; Chang JM; Lee SH; Shin SU; Huang CS; Chang RF Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2018 Feb; 154():99-107. PubMed ID: 29249352 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Quantitative transmission ultrasound tomography: Imaging and performance characteristics. Malik B; Terry R; Wiskin J; Lenox M Med Phys; 2018 Jul; 45(7):3063-3075. PubMed ID: 29745992 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Automated 3D ultrasound image segmentation to aid breast cancer image interpretation. Gu P; Lee WM; Roubidoux MA; Yuan J; Wang X; Carson PL Ultrasonics; 2016 Feb; 65():51-8. PubMed ID: 26547117 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. 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]
37. Ultrasound tomography in bone mimicking phantoms: Simulations and experiments. Falardeau T; Belanger P J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Nov; 144(5):2937. PubMed ID: 30522285 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Breast Density Analysis with Automated Whole-Breast Ultrasound: Comparison with 3-D Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Chen JH; Lee YW; Chan SW; Yeh DC; Chang RF Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 May; 42(5):1211-20. PubMed ID: 26831342 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Using deep learning to segment breast and fibroglandular tissue in MRI volumes. Dalmış MU; Litjens G; Holland K; Setio A; Mann R; Karssemeijer N; Gubern-Mérida A Med Phys; 2017 Feb; 44(2):533-546. PubMed ID: 28035663 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]