188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8972250)
21. Computerized analysis of multiple-mammographic views: potential usefulness of special view mammograms in computer-aided diagnosis.
Huo Z; Giger ML; Vyborny CJ
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1285-92. PubMed ID: 11811828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A nested case-control study of mammographic patterns, breast volume, and breast cancer (New York City, NY, United States).
Kato I; Beinart C; Bleich A; Su S; Kim M; Toniolo PG
Cancer Causes Control; 1995 Sep; 6(5):431-8. PubMed ID: 8547541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for breast cancer risk assessment: feature selection.
Huo Z; Giger ML; Wolverton DE; Zhong W; Cumming S; Olopade OI
Med Phys; 2000 Jan; 27(1):4-12. PubMed ID: 10659732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Breast density evaluation using spectral mammography, radiologist reader assessment, and segmentation techniques: a retrospective study based on left and right breast comparison.
Molloi S; Ding H; Feig S
Acad Radiol; 2015 Aug; 22(8):1052-9. PubMed ID: 26031229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Textural classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns with the SONNET Selforganizing neural network.
Howard D; Roberts SC; Ryan C; Brezulianu A
J Biomed Biotechnol; 2008; 2008():526343. PubMed ID: 18670608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Quantitative assessment of breast density from digitized mammograms into Tabar's patterns.
Jamal N; Ng KH; Looi LM; McLean D; Zulfiqar A; Tan SP; Liew WF; Shantini A; Ranganathan S
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(22):5843-57. PubMed ID: 17068368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A comparison of breast tissue classification techniques.
Oliver A; Freixenet J; Martà R; Zwiggelaar R
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv; 2006; 9(Pt 2):872-9. PubMed ID: 17354855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms.
Byng JW; Yaffe MJ; Jong RA; Shumak RS; Lockwood GA; Tritchler DL; Boyd NF
Radiographics; 1998; 18(6):1587-98. PubMed ID: 9821201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Computing mammographic density from a multiple regression model constructed with image-acquisition parameters from a full-field digital mammographic unit.
Lu LJ; Nishino TK; Khamapirad T; Grady JJ; Leonard MH; Brunder DG
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Aug; 52(16):4905-21. PubMed ID: 17671343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Quantitative assessment of mammographic density and breast cancer risk for Japanese women.
Kotsuma Y; Tamaki Y; Nishimura T; Tsubai M; Ueda S; Shimazu K; Jin Kim S; Miyoshi Y; Tanji Y; Taguchi T; Noguchi S
Breast; 2008 Feb; 17(1):27-35. PubMed ID: 17716895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Reproducibility of visual assessment on mammographic density.
Gao J; Warren R; Warren-Forward H; Forbes JF
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2008 Mar; 108(1):121-7. PubMed ID: 17616811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Automatic detection of microcalcifications with multi-fractal spectrum.
Ding Y; Dai H; Zhang H
Biomed Mater Eng; 2014; 24(6):3049-54. PubMed ID: 25227013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms.
Zhou C; Chan HP; Petrick N; Helvie MA; Goodsitt MM; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM
Med Phys; 2001 Jun; 28(6):1056-69. PubMed ID: 11439475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Computer-aided characterization of mammographic masses: accuracy of mass segmentation and its effects on characterization.
Sahiner B; Petrick N; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Paramagul C; Helvie MA; Gurcan MN
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1275-84. PubMed ID: 11811827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Fractal analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns in breast cancer risk assessment.
Li H; Giger ML; Olopade OI; Lan L
Acad Radiol; 2007 May; 14(5):513-21. PubMed ID: 17434064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Automatic Detection of Pectoral Muscle Region for Computer-Aided Diagnosis Using MIAS Mammograms.
Yoon WB; Oh JE; Chae EY; Kim HH; Lee SY; Kim KG
Biomed Res Int; 2016; 2016():5967580. PubMed ID: 27847817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Reliability of Computer-Assisted Breast Density Estimation: Comparison of Interactive Thresholding, Semiautomated, and Fully Automated Methods.
Kang E; Lee EJ; Jang M; Kim SM; Kim Y; Chun M; Tai JH; Han W; Kim SW; Kim JH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jul; 207(1):126-34. PubMed ID: 27187523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A completely automated CAD system for mass detection in a large mammographic database.
Bellotti R; De Carlo F; Tangaro S; Gargano G; Maggipinto G; Castellano M; Massafra R; Cascio D; Fauci F; Magro R; Raso G; Lauria A; Forni G; Bagnasco S; Cerello P; Zanon E; Cheran SC; Lopez Torres E; Bottigli U; Masala GL; Oliva P; Retico A; Fantacci ME; Cataldo R; De Mitri I; De Nunzio G
Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):3066-75. PubMed ID: 16964885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Finding corresponding regions of interest in mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal mammographic views.
van Engeland S; Timp S; Karssemeijer N
Med Phys; 2006 Sep; 33(9):3203-12. PubMed ID: 17022213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images.
Wei J; Chan HP; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Zhou C; Paquerault S; Chenevert T; Goodsitt MM
Med Phys; 2004 Apr; 31(4):933-42. PubMed ID: 15125012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
