155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35262841)
1. Prediction of Short-Term Breast Cancer Risk with Fusion of CC- and MLO-Based Risk Models in Four-View Mammograms.
Li Y; Yuan W; Fan M; Zheng B; Li L
J Digit Imaging; 2022 Aug; 35(4):910-922. PubMed ID: 35262841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessment of a Four-View Mammographic Image Feature Based Fusion Model to Predict Near-Term Breast Cancer Risk.
Tan M; Pu J; Cheng S; Liu H; Zheng B
Ann Biomed Eng; 2015 Oct; 43(10):2416-28. PubMed ID: 25851469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Fusion of k-Gabor features from medio-lateral-oblique and craniocaudal view mammograms for improved breast cancer diagnosis.
Sasikala S; Ezhilarasi M
J Cancer Res Ther; 2018; 14(5):1036-1041. PubMed ID: 30197344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A multi-stage fusion framework to classify breast lesions using deep learning and radiomics features computed from four-view mammograms.
Jones MA; Sadeghipour N; Chen X; Islam W; Zheng B
Med Phys; 2023 Dec; 50(12):7670-7683. PubMed ID: 37083190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Association and Prediction Utilizing Craniocaudal and Mediolateral Oblique View Digital Mammography and Long-Term Breast Cancer Risk.
Chen S; Tamimi RM; Colditz GA; Jiang S
Cancer Prev Res (Phila); 2023 Sep; 16(9):531-537. PubMed ID: 37428020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Improvements of an objective model of compressed breasts undergoing mammography: Generation and characterization of breast shapes.
RodrÃguez-Ruiz A; Feng SSJ; van Zelst J; Vreemann S; Mann JR; D'Orsi CJ; Sechopoulos I
Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2161-2172. PubMed ID: 28244109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A new approach to develop computer-aided detection schemes of digital mammograms.
Tan M; Qian W; Pu J; Liu H; Zheng B
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Jun; 60(11):4413-27. PubMed ID: 25984710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Developing a new case based computer-aided detection scheme and an adaptive cueing method to improve performance in detecting mammographic lesions.
Tan M; Aghaei F; Wang Y; Zheng B
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Jan; 62(2):358-376. PubMed ID: 27997380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Objective models of compressed breast shapes undergoing mammography.
Feng SS; Patel B; Sechopoulos I
Med Phys; 2013 Mar; 40(3):031902. PubMed ID: 23464317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Regression Analysis between the Different Breast Dose Quantities Reported in Digital Mammography and Patient Age, Breast Thickness, and Acquisition Parameters.
Dhou S; Dalah E; AlGhafeer R; Hamidu A; Obaideen A
J Imaging; 2022 Jul; 8(8):. PubMed ID: 36005454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Simultaneously Acquired Digital Mammographic Images versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images.
Korhonen KE; Conant EF; Cohen EA; Synnestvedt M; McDonald ES; Weinstein SP
Radiology; 2019 Jul; 292(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 31084481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Reduction of false-positive recalls using a computerized mammographic image feature analysis scheme.
Tan M; Pu J; Zheng B
Phys Med Biol; 2014 Aug; 59(15):4357-73. PubMed ID: 25029964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improving the malignancy prediction of breast cancer based on the integration of radiomics features from dual-view mammography and clinical parameters.
Zhou C; Xie H; Zhu F; Yan W; Yu R; Wang Y
Clin Exp Med; 2023 Oct; 23(6):2357-2368. PubMed ID: 36413273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Global Radiomic Features from Mammography for Predicting Difficult-To-Interpret Normal Cases.
Siviengphanom S; Gandomkar Z; Lewis SJ; Brennan PC
J Digit Imaging; 2023 Aug; 36(4):1541-1552. PubMed ID: 37253894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Replacing single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital mammography (DM) with synthesized mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images: Comparison of the diagnostic performance and radiation dose with two-view DM with or without MLO-DBT.
Kang HJ; Chang JM; Lee J; Song SE; Shin SU; Kim WH; Bae MS; Moon WK
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Nov; 85(11):2042-2048. PubMed ID: 27776658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
