1089 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33328045)
21. Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer.
Ehteshami Bejnordi B; Veta M; Johannes van Diest P; van Ginneken B; Karssemeijer N; Litjens G; van der Laak JAWM; ; Hermsen M; Manson QF; Balkenhol M; Geessink O; Stathonikos N; van Dijk MC; Bult P; Beca F; Beck AH; Wang D; Khosla A; Gargeya R; Irshad H; Zhong A; Dou Q; Li Q; Chen H; Lin HJ; Heng PA; Haß C; Bruni E; Wong Q; Halici U; Öner MÜ; Cetin-Atalay R; Berseth M; Khvatkov V; Vylegzhanin A; Kraus O; Shaban M; Rajpoot N; Awan R; Sirinukunwattana K; Qaiser T; Tsang YW; Tellez D; Annuscheit J; Hufnagl P; Valkonen M; Kartasalo K; Latonen L; Ruusuvuori P; Liimatainen K; Albarqouni S; Mungal B; George A; Demirci S; Navab N; Watanabe S; Seno S; Takenaka Y; Matsuda H; Ahmady Phoulady H; Kovalev V; Kalinovsky A; Liauchuk V; Bueno G; Fernandez-Carrobles MM; Serrano I; Deniz O; Racoceanu D; Venâncio R
JAMA; 2017 Dec; 318(22):2199-2210. PubMed ID: 29234806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Independent real-world application of a clinical-grade automated prostate cancer detection system.
da Silva LM; Pereira EM; Salles PG; Godrich R; Ceballos R; Kunz JD; Casson A; Viret J; Chandarlapaty S; Ferreira CG; Ferrari B; Rothrock B; Raciti P; Reuter V; Dogdas B; DeMuth G; Sue J; Kanan C; Grady L; Fuchs TJ; Reis-Filho JS
J Pathol; 2021 Jun; 254(2):147-158. PubMed ID: 33904171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Development of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Histopathologic Diagnosis and Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer Biopsies: A Pilot Study.
Kott O; Linsley D; Amin A; Karagounis A; Jeffers C; Golijanin D; Serre T; Gershman B
Eur Urol Focus; 2021 Mar; 7(2):347-351. PubMed ID: 31767543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A deep learning system for prostate cancer diagnosis and grading in whole slide images of core needle biopsies.
Singhal N; Soni S; Bonthu S; Chattopadhyay N; Samanta P; Joshi U; Jojera A; Chharchhodawala T; Agarwal A; Desai M; Ganpule A
Sci Rep; 2022 Mar; 12(1):3383. PubMed ID: 35233002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Evaluate Performance of a Classifier for Automatic Grading of Prostate Cancer From Digitized Histopathologic Images.
Nir G; Karimi D; Goldenberg SL; Fazli L; Skinnider BF; Tavassoli P; Turbin D; Villamil CF; Wang G; Thompson DJS; Black PC; Salcudean SE
JAMA Netw Open; 2019 Mar; 2(3):e190442. PubMed ID: 30848813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Artificial Intelligence-Based Breast Cancer Nodal Metastasis Detection: Insights Into the Black Box for Pathologists.
Liu Y; Kohlberger T; Norouzi M; Dahl GE; Smith JL; Mohtashamian A; Olson N; Peng LH; Hipp JD; Stumpe MC
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2019 Jul; 143(7):859-868. PubMed ID: 30295070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosis and Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer in Biopsies-Current Status and Next Steps.
Kartasalo K; Bulten W; Delahunt B; Chen PC; Pinckaers H; Olsson H; Ji X; Mulliqi N; Samaratunga H; Tsuzuki T; Lindberg J; Rantalainen M; Wählby C; Litjens G; Ruusuvuori P; Egevad L; Eklund M
Eur Urol Focus; 2021 Jul; 7(4):687-691. PubMed ID: 34393083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Automated gleason grading on prostate biopsy slides by statistical representations of homology profile.
Yan C; Nakane K; Wang X; Fu Y; Lu H; Fan X; Feldman MD; Madabhushi A; Xu J
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2020 Oct; 194():105528. PubMed ID: 32470903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Artificial intelligence assistance significantly improves Gleason grading of prostate biopsies by pathologists.
Bulten W; Balkenhol M; Belinga JA; Brilhante A; Çakır A; Egevad L; Eklund M; Farré X; Geronatsiou K; Molinié V; Pereira G; Roy P; Saile G; Salles P; Schaafsma E; Tschui J; Vos AM; ; van Boven H; Vink R; van der Laak J; Hulsbergen-van der Kaa C; Litjens G
Mod Pathol; 2021 Mar; 34(3):660-671. PubMed ID: 32759979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Prostate cancer: correlation of intravoxel incoherent motion MR parameters with Gleason score.
Yang DM; Kim HC; Kim SW; Jahng GH; Won KY; Lim SJ; Oh JH
Clin Imaging; 2016; 40(3):445-50. PubMed ID: 27133684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Going deeper through the Gleason scoring scale: An automatic end-to-end system for histology prostate grading and cribriform pattern detection.
Silva-Rodríguez J; Colomer A; Sales MA; Molina R; Naranjo V
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2020 Oct; 195():105637. PubMed ID: 32653747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Development and validation of an explainable artificial intelligence-based decision-supporting tool for prostate biopsy.
Suh J; Yoo S; Park J; Cho SY; Cho MC; Son H; Jeong H
BJU Int; 2020 Dec; 126(6):694-703. PubMed ID: 32455477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A systems-based modelling approach using transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) specimens yielded incremental prognostic significance to Gleason when predicting long-term outcome in men with localized prostate cancer.
Donovan MJ; Khan FM; Bayer-Zubek V; Powell D; Costa J; Cordon-Cardo C
BJU Int; 2012 Jan; 109(2):207-13. PubMed ID: 21733075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of A Computer-Aided Detection Software for Prostate Cancer Prediction: Excellent Diagnostic Accuracy Independent of Preanalytical Factors.
Vazzano J; Johansson D; Hu K; Eurén K; Elfwing S; Parwani A; Zhou M
Lab Invest; 2023 Dec; 103(12):100257. PubMed ID: 37813279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Outcome of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed on Needle Biopsy: Prognostic Comparison with Gleason 4 + 4 = 8.
Harding-Jackson N; Kryvenko ON; Whittington EE; Eastwood DC; Tjionas GA; Jorda M; Iczkowski KA
J Urol; 2016 Oct; 196(4):1076-81. PubMed ID: 27265220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Clinical Validation of Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Pathology Diagnosis Demonstrates Significant Gains in Diagnostic Accuracy in Prostate Cancer Detection.
Raciti P; Sue J; Retamero JA; Ceballos R; Godrich R; Kunz JD; Casson A; Thiagarajan D; Ebrahimzadeh Z; Viret J; Lee D; Schüffler PJ; DeMuth G; Gulturk E; Kanan C; Rothrock B; Reis-Filho J; Klimstra DS; Reuter V; Fuchs TJ
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2023 Oct; 147(10):1178-1185. PubMed ID: 36538386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Detection of perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsies with deep neural networks.
Kartasalo K; Ström P; Ruusuvuori P; Samaratunga H; Delahunt B; Tsuzuki T; Eklund M; Egevad L
Virchows Arch; 2022 Jul; 481(1):73-82. PubMed ID: 35449363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Patterns in immunohistochemical usage in extended core prostate biopsies: comparisons among genitourinary pathologists and nongenitourinary pathologists.
Plourde A; Gross A; Jiang Z; Owens CL
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2013 Nov; 137(11):1630-4. PubMed ID: 24168501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. An international multi-institutional validation study of the algorithm for prostate cancer detection and Gleason grading.
Tolkach Y; Ovtcharov V; Pryalukhin A; Eich ML; Gaisa NT; Braun M; Radzhabov A; Quaas A; Hammerer P; Dellmann A; Hulla W; Haffner MC; Reis H; Fahoum I; Samarska I; Borbat A; Pham H; Heidenreich A; Klein S; Netto G; Caie P; Buettner R
NPJ Precis Oncol; 2023 Aug; 7(1):77. PubMed ID: 37582946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A validation study of new decision algorithms for interpretation of cancer significance on prostate systematic biopsy.
Ogola GO; Delongchamps N; Serfling R
Can J Urol; 2017 Apr; 24(2):8721-8727. PubMed ID: 28436358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
