125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34837254)
21. An in silico study on the detectability of field cancerization through parenchymal analysis of digital mammograms.
Hernández A; Miranda DA; Pertuz S
Med Phys; 2023 Oct; 50(10):6379-6389. PubMed ID: 36994613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Comparative analysis of image-based phenotypes of mammographic density and parenchymal patterns in distinguishing between BRCA1/2 cases, unilateral cancer cases, and controls.
Li H; Giger ML; Lan L; Janardanan J; Sennett CA
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2014 Oct; 1(3):031009. PubMed ID: 26158050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Computerized analysis of multiple-mammographic views: potential usefulness of special view mammograms in computer-aided diagnosis.
Huo Z; Giger ML; Vyborny CJ
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1285-92. PubMed ID: 11811828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Association between Breast Parenchymal Complexity and False-Positive Recall From Digital Mammography Versus Breast Tomosynthesis: Preliminary Investigation in the ACRIN PA 4006 Trial.
Ray S; Chen L; Keller BM; Chen J; Conant EF; Kontos D
Acad Radiol; 2016 Aug; 23(8):977-86. PubMed ID: 27236612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Power spectral analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for breast cancer risk assessment.
Li H; Giger ML; Olopade OI; Chinander MR
J Digit Imaging; 2008 Jun; 21(2):145-52. PubMed ID: 18175183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Symmetry of projection in the quantitative analysis of mammographic images.
Byng JW; Boyd NF; Little L; Lockwood G; Fishell E; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
Eur J Cancer Prev; 1996 Oct; 5(5):319-27. PubMed ID: 8972250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Analysis of parenchymal texture with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammography and implications for cancer risk assessment.
Kontos D; Ikejimba LC; Bakic PR; Troxel AB; Conant EF; Maidment AD
Radiology; 2011 Oct; 261(1):80-91. PubMed ID: 21771961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Using computer-extracted image features for modeling of error-making patterns in detection of mammographic masses among radiology residents.
Zhang J; Lo JY; Kuzmiak CM; Ghate SV; Yoon SC; Mazurowski MA
Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091907. PubMed ID: 25186394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for assessing breast cancer risk: effect of ROI size and location.
Li H; Giger ML; Huo Z; Olopade OI; Lan L; Weber BL; Bonta I
Med Phys; 2004 Mar; 31(3):549-55. PubMed ID: 15070253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Algorithms and methods for computerized analysis of mammography images in breast cancer risk assessment.
Hernández A; Miranda DA; Pertuz S
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2021 Nov; 212():106443. PubMed ID: 34656014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Breast density and parenchymal texture measures as potential risk factors for Estrogen-Receptor positive breast cancer.
Keller BM; Chen J; Conant EF; Kontos D
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2014 Mar; 9035():90351D. PubMed ID: 25075270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Parenchymal texture analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer risk estimation: a preliminary study.
Kontos D; Bakic PR; Carton AK; Troxel AB; Conant EF; Maidment AD
Acad Radiol; 2009 Mar; 16(3):283-98. PubMed ID: 19201357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A new near-term breast cancer risk prediction scheme based on the quantitative analysis of ipsilateral view mammograms.
Sun W; Tseng TB; Qian W; Saltzstein EC; Zheng B; Yu H; Zhou S
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2018 Mar; 155():29-38. PubMed ID: 29512502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The combined effect of mammographic texture and density on breast cancer risk: a cohort study.
Wanders JOP; van Gils CH; Karssemeijer N; Holland K; Kallenberg M; Peeters PHM; Nielsen M; Lillholm M
Breast Cancer Res; 2018 May; 20(1):36. PubMed ID: 29720220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Characterization and classification of tumor lesions using computerized fractal-based texture analysis and support vector machines in digital mammograms.
Guo Q; Shao J; Ruiz VF
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2009 Jan; 4(1):11-25. PubMed ID: 20033598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Incorporating Breast Anatomy in Computational Phenotyping of Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns for Breast Cancer Risk Estimation.
Gastounioti A; Hsieh MK; Cohen E; Pantalone L; Conant EF; Kontos D
Sci Rep; 2018 Nov; 8(1):17489. PubMed ID: 30504841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms: a quantitative assessment.
Tan M; Al-Shabi M; Chan WY; Thomas L; Rahmat K; Ng KH
Med Biol Eng Comput; 2021 Feb; 59(2):355-367. PubMed ID: 33447988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Assessment of global and local region-based bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry to predict short-term breast cancer risk.
Li Y; Fan M; Cheng H; Zhang P; Zheng B; Li L
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(2):025004. PubMed ID: 29226849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Inter-observer agreement according to three methods of evaluating mammographic density and parenchymal pattern in a case control study: impact on relative risk of breast cancer.
Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Diao P; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
BMC Cancer; 2015 Apr; 15():274. PubMed ID: 25884160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
