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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36371184)

  • 21. Immunohistochemical expression of Ets-related gene-transcriptional factor in adenocarcinoma prostate and its correlation with Gleason score.
    Mannan R; Bhasin TS; Manjari M; Singh G; Bhatia PK; Sharma S
    Indian J Pathol Microbiol; 2016; 59(4):489-495. PubMed ID: 27721279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Clinical Proof-of-concept of a Novel Platform Utilizing Biopsy-derived Live Single Cells, Phenotypic Biomarkers, and Machine Learning Toward a Precision Risk Stratification Test for Prostate Cancer Grade Groups 1 and 2 (Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4).
    Albala D; Manak MS; Varsanik JS; Rashid HH; Mouraviev V; Zappala SM; Ette E; Kella N; Rieger-Christ KM; Sant GR; Chander AC
    Urology; 2019 Feb; 124():198-206. PubMed ID: 30312670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Epithelium segmentation and automated Gleason grading of prostate cancer via deep learning in label-free multiphoton microscopic images.
    Yang Q; Xu Z; Liao C; Cai J; Huang Y; Chen H; Tao X; Huang Z; Chen J; Dong J; Zhu X
    J Biophotonics; 2020 Feb; 13(2):e201900203. PubMed ID: 31710780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Magnetic Resonance and Ultrasound Image Fusion Supported Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Using the Ginsburg Protocol: Technique, Learning Points, and Biopsy Results.
    Hansen N; Patruno G; Wadhwa K; Gaziev G; Miano R; Barrett T; Gnanapragasam V; Doble A; Warren A; Bratt O; Kastner C
    Eur Urol; 2016 Aug; 70(2):332-40. PubMed ID: 26995327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Explicit shape descriptors: novel morphologic features for histopathology classification.
    Sparks R; Madabhushi A
    Med Image Anal; 2013 Dec; 17(8):997-1009. PubMed ID: 23850744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of a machine and deep learning model for automated tumor annotation on digitized whole slide prostate cancer histology.
    Duenweg SR; Brehler M; Bobholz SA; Lowman AK; Winiarz A; Kyereme F; Nencka A; Iczkowski KA; LaViolette PS
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(3):e0278084. PubMed ID: 36928230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. An artificial intelligence algorithm for prostate cancer diagnosis in whole slide images of core needle biopsies: a blinded clinical validation and deployment study.
    Pantanowitz L; Quiroga-Garza GM; Bien L; Heled R; Laifenfeld D; Linhart C; Sandbank J; Albrecht Shach A; Shalev V; Vecsler M; Michelow P; Hazelhurst S; Dhir R
    Lancet Digit Health; 2020 Aug; 2(8):e407-e416. PubMed ID: 33328045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Automated deep-learning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study.
    Bulten W; Pinckaers H; van Boven H; Vink R; de Bel T; van Ginneken B; van der Laak J; Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C; Litjens G
    Lancet Oncol; 2020 Feb; 21(2):233-241. PubMed ID: 31926805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of machine learning algorithms to predict clinically significant prostate cancer of the peripheral zone with multiparametric MRI using clinical assessment categories and radiomic features.
    Bernatz S; Ackermann J; Mandel P; Kaltenbach B; Zhdanovich Y; Harter PN; Döring C; Hammerstingl R; Bodelle B; Smith K; Bucher A; Albrecht M; Rosbach N; Basten L; Yel I; Wenzel M; Bankov K; Koch I; Chun FK; Köllermann J; Wild PJ; Vogl TJ
    Eur Radiol; 2020 Dec; 30(12):6757-6769. PubMed ID: 32676784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Machine learning approaches to analyze histological images of tissues from radical prostatectomies.
    Gertych A; Ing N; Ma Z; Fuchs TJ; Salman S; Mohanty S; Bhele S; Velásquez-Vacca A; Amin MB; Knudsen BS
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2015 Dec; 46 Pt 2(Pt 2):197-208. PubMed ID: 26362074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Machine Learning-Based Interpretation and Visualization of Nonlinear Interactions in Prostate Cancer Survival.
    Li R; Shinde A; Liu A; Glaser S; Lyou Y; Yuh B; Wong J; Amini A
    JCO Clin Cancer Inform; 2020 Jul; 4():637-646. PubMed ID: 32673068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Accuracy of MRI-Targeted in-Bore Prostate Biopsy According to the Gleason Score with Postprostatectomy Histopathologic Control--a Targeted Biopsy-Only Strategy with Limited Number of Cores.
    Garmer M; Busch M; Mateiescu S; Fahlbusch DE; Wagener B; Grönemeyer DH
    Acad Radiol; 2015 Nov; 22(11):1409-18. PubMed ID: 26343218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness with a combination of radiomics and machine learning-based analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.
    Liu B; Cheng J; Guo DJ; He XJ; Luo YD; Zeng Y; Li CM
    Clin Radiol; 2019 Nov; 74(11):896.e1-896.e8. PubMed ID: 31495546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. SOCS3 Immunohistochemical Expression Seems to Support the 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading System.
    Pierconti F; Martini M; Cenci T; Petrone GL; Ricci R; Sacco E; Bassi PF; Larocca LM
    Prostate; 2017 May; 77(6):597-603. PubMed ID: 28144985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Accuracy of prostate biopsies for predicting Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens: nationwide trends 2000-2012.
    Danneman D; Drevin L; Delahunt B; Samaratunga H; Robinson D; Bratt O; Loeb S; Stattin P; Egevad L
    BJU Int; 2017 Jan; 119(1):50-56. PubMed ID: 26918298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance.
    Radtke JP; Kuru TH; Boxler S; Alt CD; Popeneciu IV; Huettenbrink C; Klein T; Steinemann S; Bergstraesser C; Roethke M; Roth W; Schlemmer HP; Hohenfellner M; Hadaschik BA
    J Urol; 2015 Jan; 193(1):87-94. PubMed ID: 25079939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Semi-supervised training of deep convolutional neural networks with heterogeneous data and few local annotations: An experiment on prostate histopathology image classification.
    Marini N; Otálora S; Müller H; Atzori M
    Med Image Anal; 2021 Oct; 73():102165. PubMed ID: 34303169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. PI-RADS Version 2 Category on 3 Tesla Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Oncologic Outcomes in Gleason 3 + 4 Prostate Cancer on Biopsy.
    Faiena I; Salmasi A; Mendhiratta N; Markovic D; Ahuja P; Hsu W; Elashoff DA; Raman SS; Reiter RE
    J Urol; 2019 Jan; 201(1):91-97. PubMed ID: 30577397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Automatic grading of prostate cancer in digitized histopathology images: Learning from multiple experts.
    Nir G; Hor S; Karimi D; Fazli L; Skinnider BF; Tavassoli P; Turbin D; Villamil CF; Wang G; Wilson RS; Iczkowski KA; Lucia MS; Black PC; Abolmaesumi P; Goldenberg SL; Salcudean SE
    Med Image Anal; 2018 Dec; 50():167-180. PubMed ID: 30340027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.