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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37018830)

  • 41. Personal Computer-Based Cephalometric Landmark Detection With Deep Learning, Using Cephalograms on the Internet.
    Nishimoto S; Sotsuka Y; Kawai K; Ishise H; Kakibuchi M
    J Craniofac Surg; 2019 Jan; 30(1):91-95. PubMed ID: 30439733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of OneCeph digital cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis-a cross-sectional study.
    Mohan A; Sivakumar A; Nalabothu P
    BDJ Open; 2021 Jun; 7(1):22. PubMed ID: 34140466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Commercial artificial intelligence lateral cephalometric analysis: part 2-effects of human examiners on artificial intelligence performance, a pilot study.
    Lee J; Bae SR; Noh HK
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2023 Nov; 47(6):130-141. PubMed ID: 37997244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs.
    Erkan M; Gurel HG; Nur M; Demirel B
    Eur J Orthod; 2012 Jun; 34(3):318-21. PubMed ID: 21502380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Ceph-X: development and evaluation of 2D cephalometric system.
    Mosleh MA; Baba MS; Malek S; Almaktari RA
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Dec; 17(Suppl 19):499. PubMed ID: 28155649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Comparison of manual, digital and lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses.
    Navarro Rde L; Oltramari-Navarro PV; Fernandes TM; Oliveira GF; Conti AC; Almeida MR; Almeida RR
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2013; 21(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 23739848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Comparison of cephalometric measurements between conventional and automatic cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural network.
    Jeon S; Lee KC
    Prog Orthod; 2021 May; 22(1):14. PubMed ID: 34056670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Skeletal facial asymmetry: reliability of manual and artificial intelligence-driven analysis.
    Kazimierczak N; Kazimierczak W; Serafin Z; Nowicki P; Jankowski T; Jankowska A; Janiszewska-Olszowska J
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2024 Jan; 53(1):52-59. PubMed ID: 38214946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Picture archiving and communications systems: a study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis.
    Tan SS; Ahmad S; Moles DR; Cunningham SJ
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Oct; 33(5):537-43. PubMed ID: 21106665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained using conventional and digital methods.
    Vithanaarachchi N; Chandrasiri A; Nawarathna L
    Ceylon Med J; 2020 Sep; 65(3):39-45. PubMed ID: 34800930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Commercial artificial intelligence lateral cephalometric analysis: part 1-the possibility of replacing manual landmarking with artificial intelligence service.
    Lee J; Bae SR; Noh HK
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2023 Nov; 47(6):106-118. PubMed ID: 37997242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system.
    Chen YJ; Chen SK; Huang HW; Yao CC; Chang HF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Sep; 33(5):301-6. PubMed ID: 15585806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Comparison of cephalometric analysis using a non-radiographic sonic digitizer (DigiGraph Workstation) with conventional radiography.
    Tsang KH; Cooke MS
    Eur J Orthod; 1999 Feb; 21(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 10191573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings.
    Meriç P; Naoumova J
    Turk J Orthod; 2020 Sep; 33(3):142-149. PubMed ID: 32974059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique.
    Santoro M; Jarjoura K; Cangialosi TJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Mar; 129(3):345-51. PubMed ID: 16527629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program.
    Periago DR; Scarfe WC; Moshiri M; Scheetz JP; Silveira AM; Farman AG
    Angle Orthod; 2008 May; 78(3):387-95. PubMed ID: 18416632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Comparison of a tridimensional cephalometric analysis performed on 3T-MRI compared with CBCT: a pilot study in adults.
    Maspero C; Abate A; Bellincioni F; Cavagnetto D; Lanteri V; Costa A; Farronato M
    Prog Orthod; 2019 Oct; 20(1):40. PubMed ID: 31631241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Automated analysis of three-dimensional CBCT images taken in natural head position that combines facial profile processing and multiple deep-learning models.
    Ahn J; Nguyen TP; Kim YJ; Kim T; Yoon J
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2022 Nov; 226():107123. PubMed ID: 36156440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Reproducibility and speed of landmarking process in cephalometric analysis using two input devices: mouse-driven cursor versus pen.
    Cutrera A; Barbato E; Maiorana F; Giordano D; Leonardi R
    Ann Stomatol (Roma); 2015; 6(2):47-52. PubMed ID: 26330904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Developing an automatic lateral cephalometric landmark identification program and evaluating its performance.
    Rakhshan V; Rakhshan H; Sheibaninia A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2009; 12(4):327-43. PubMed ID: 20108870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.