187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35487950)
21. Identification of areas of grading difficulties in prostate cancer and comparison with artificial intelligence assisted grading.
Egevad L; Swanberg D; Delahunt B; Ström P; Kartasalo K; Olsson H; Berney DM; Bostwick DG; Evans AJ; Humphrey PA; Iczkowski KA; Kench JG; Kristiansen G; Leite KRM; McKenney JK; Oxley J; Pan CC; Samaratunga H; Srigley JR; Takahashi H; Tsuzuki T; van der Kwast T; Varma M; Zhou M; Clements M; Eklund M
Virchows Arch; 2020 Dec; 477(6):777-786. PubMed ID: 32542445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy Enables Gleason Scoring of Prostate Core Needle Biopsy by a Convolutional Neural Network.
Ao J; Shao X; Liu Z; Liu Q; Xia J; Shi Y; Qi L; Pan J; Ji M
Cancer Res; 2023 Feb; 83(4):641-651. PubMed ID: 36594873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. WeGleNet: A weakly-supervised convolutional neural network for the semantic segmentation of Gleason grades in prostate histology images.
Silva-Rodríguez J; Colomer A; Naranjo V
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2021 Mar; 88():101846. PubMed ID: 33485056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays.
Burchardt M; Engers R; Müller M; Burchardt T; Willers R; Epstein JI; Ackermann R; Gabbert HE; de la Taille A; Rubin MA
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol; 2008 Oct; 134(10):1071-8. PubMed ID: 18392850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A grading dilemma; Gleason scoring system: Are we sufficiently compatible? A multi center study.
Dere Y; Çelik ÖI; Çelik SY; Ekmekçi S; Evcim G; Pehlivan F; Ağalar A; Deliktaş H; Çulhacı N
Indian J Pathol Microbiol; 2020 Feb; 63(Supplement):S25-S29. PubMed ID: 32108622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Novel artificial intelligence system increases the detection of prostate cancer in whole slide images of core needle biopsies.
Raciti P; Sue J; Ceballos R; Godrich R; Kunz JD; Kapur S; Reuter V; Grady L; Kanan C; Klimstra DS; Fuchs TJ
Mod Pathol; 2020 Oct; 33(10):2058-2066. PubMed ID: 32393768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Visual Assessment of 2-Dimensional Levels Within 3-Dimensional Pathology Data Sets of Prostate Needle Biopsies Reveals Substantial Spatial Heterogeneity.
Koyuncu C; Janowczyk A; Farre X; Pathak T; Mirtti T; Fernandez PL; Pons L; Reder NP; Serafin R; Chow SSL; Viswanathan VS; Glaser AK; True LD; Liu JTC; Madabhushi A
Lab Invest; 2023 Dec; 103(12):100265. PubMed ID: 37858679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Optimal Method for Reporting Prostate Cancer Grade in MRI-targeted Biopsies.
Deng FM; Isaila B; Jones D; Ren Q; Kyung P; Hoskoppal D; Huang H; Mirsadraei L; Xia Y; Melamed J
Am J Surg Pathol; 2022 Jan; 46(1):44-50. PubMed ID: 34115670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Automatic diagnosis and grading of Prostate Cancer with weakly supervised learning on whole slide images.
Xiang J; Wang X; Wang X; Zhang J; Yang S; Yang W; Han X; Liu Y
Comput Biol Med; 2023 Jan; 152():106340. PubMed ID: 36481762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States.
Oyama T; Allsbrook WC; Kurokawa K; Matsuda H; Segawa A; Sano T; Suzuki K; Epstein JI
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2005 Aug; 129(8):1004-10. PubMed ID: 16048389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists.
Berney DM; Algaba F; Camparo P; Compérat E; Griffiths D; Kristiansen G; Lopez-Beltran A; Montironi R; Varma M; Egevad L
Histopathology; 2014 Feb; 64(3):405-11. PubMed ID: 24102975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.
Epstein JI; Egevad L; Amin MB; Delahunt B; Srigley JR; Humphrey PA;
Am J Surg Pathol; 2016 Feb; 40(2):244-52. PubMed ID: 26492179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A comparative study of the inter-observer variability on Gleason grading against Deep Learning-based approaches for prostate cancer.
Marrón-Esquivel JM; Duran-Lopez L; Linares-Barranco A; Dominguez-Morales JP
Comput Biol Med; 2023 Jun; 159():106856. PubMed ID: 37075600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies.
Rodriguez-Urrego PA; Cronin AM; Al-Ahmadie HA; Gopalan A; Tickoo SK; Reuter VE; Fine SW
Hum Pathol; 2011 Jan; 42(1):68-74. PubMed ID: 20970164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading in prostate biopsy samples].
Bori R; Salamon F; Móczár C; Cserni G
Orv Hetil; 2013 Aug; 154(31):1219-25. PubMed ID: 23895990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
