188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8972250)
1. 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]
2. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities.
Byng JW; Boyd NF; Fishell E; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 1994 Oct; 39(10):1629-38. PubMed ID: 15551535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Automated analysis of mammographic densities.
Byng JW; Boyd NF; Fishell E; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 1996 May; 41(5):909-23. PubMed ID: 8735257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast image pre-processing for mammographic tissue segmentation.
He W; Hogg P; Juette A; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
Comput Biol Med; 2015 Dec; 67():61-73. PubMed ID: 26498046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mammographic features and subsequent risk of breast cancer: a comparison of qualitative and quantitative evaluations in the Guernsey prospective studies.
Torres-Mejía G; De Stavola B; Allen DS; Pérez-Gavilán JJ; Ferreira JM; Fentiman IS; Dos Santos Silva I
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2005 May; 14(5):1052-9. PubMed ID: 15894652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A new method for quantitative analysis of mammographic density.
Glide-Hurst CK; Duric N; Littrup P
Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4491-8. PubMed ID: 18072514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast arterial calcifications on mammography: intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of a semi-automatic quantification tool.
Trimboli RM; Codari M; Bert A; Carbonaro LA; Maccagnoni S; Raciti D; Bernardi D; Clauser P; Losio C; Tagliafico A; Sardanelli F
Radiol Med; 2018 Mar; 123(3):168-173. PubMed ID: 29086382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Influence of using manual or automatic breast density information in a mass detection CAD system.
Oliver A; Lladó X; Freixenet J; Martí R; Pérez E; Pont J; Zwiggelaar R
Acad Radiol; 2010 Jul; 17(7):877-83. PubMed ID: 20540910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Breast cancer risk and measured mammographic density.
Yaffe MJ; Boyd NF; Byng JW; Jong RA; Fishell E; Lockwood GA; Little LE; Tritchler DL
Eur J Cancer Prev; 1998 Feb; 7 Suppl 1():S47-55. PubMed ID: 10866036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Automated analysis of mammographic densities and breast carcinoma risk.
Byng JW; Yaffe MJ; Lockwood GA; Little LE; Tritchler DL; Boyd NF
Cancer; 1997 Jul; 80(1):66-74. PubMed ID: 9210710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Computerized texture analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns of digitized mammograms.
Li H; Giger ML; Olopade OI; Margolis A; Lan L; Chinander MR
Acad Radiol; 2005 Jul; 12(7):863-73. PubMed ID: 16039540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: the effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures.
Keller BM; Nathan DL; Gavenonis SC; Chen J; Conant EF; Kontos D
Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):560-8. PubMed ID: 23465381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns on a large clinical dataset of full-field digital mammograms: robustness study with two high-risk datasets.
Li H; Giger ML; Lan L; Bancroft Brown J; MacMahon A; Mussman M; Olopade OI; Sennett C
J Digit Imaging; 2012 Oct; 25(5):591-8. PubMed ID: 22246204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Fractal analysis of visual search activity for mass detection during mammographic screening.
Alamudun F; Yoon HJ; Hudson KB; Morin-Ducote G; Hammond T; Tourassi GD
Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):832-846. PubMed ID: 28079249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Predicting breast cancer risk using mammographic density measurements from both mammogram sides and views.
Stone J; Ding J; Warren RM; Duffy SW
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2010 Nov; 124(2):551-4. PubMed ID: 20544272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of a new and existing method of mammographic density measurement: intramethod reliability and associations with known risk factors.
McCormack VA; Highnam R; Perry N; dos Santos Silva I
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2007 Jun; 16(6):1148-54. PubMed ID: 17548677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Breast cancer risk analysis based on a novel segmentation framework for digital mammograms.
Chen X; Moschidis E; Taylor C; Astley S
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv; 2014; 17(Pt 1):536-43. PubMed ID: 25333160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns.
Al Mousa DS; Brennan PC; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Tan J; Mello-Thoms C
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1386-93. PubMed ID: 25172414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
