188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8972250)
41. Assessment of a Four-View Mammographic Image Feature Based Fusion Model to Predict Near-Term Breast Cancer Risk.
Tan M; Pu J; Cheng S; Liu H; Zheng B
Ann Biomed Eng; 2015 Oct; 43(10):2416-28. PubMed ID: 25851469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Clinical comparison of a novel breast DXA technique to mammographic density.
Shepherd JA; Herve L; Landau J; Fan B; Kerlikowske K; Cummings SR
Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1490-8. PubMed ID: 16752583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Quantitative measures confirm the inverse relationship between lesion spiculation and detection of breast masses.
Rawashdeh MA; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Borecky N; Brennan PC
Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):576-80. PubMed ID: 23477828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. A review of automatic mass detection and segmentation in mammographic images.
Oliver A; Freixenet J; Martí J; Pérez E; Pont J; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
Med Image Anal; 2010 Apr; 14(2):87-110. PubMed ID: 20071209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Screening Mammography Findings From One Standard Projection Only in the Era of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Cohen EO; Tso HH; Phalak KA; Mayo RC; Leung JWT
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Aug; 211(2):445-451. PubMed ID: 29792742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Investigation of psychophysical measure for evaluation of similar images for mammographic masses: preliminary results.
Muramatsu C; Li Q; Suzuki K; Schmidt RA; Shiraishi J; Newstead GM; Doi K
Med Phys; 2005 Jul; 32(7):2295-304. PubMed ID: 16121585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. An anatomically oriented breast coordinate system for mammogram analysis.
Brandt SS; Karemore G; Karssemeijer N; Nielsen M
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2011 Oct; 30(10):1841-51. PubMed ID: 21609879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Prediction of near-term risk of developing breast cancer using computerized features from bilateral mammograms.
Sun W; Zheng B; Lure F; Wu T; Zhang J; Wang BY; Saltzstein EC; Qian W
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2014 Jul; 38(5):348-57. PubMed ID: 24725671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. A pilot study of mammographic density patterns among Japanese women.
Maskarinec G; Meng L; Shimozuma K
J Epidemiol; 1999 Apr; 9(2):73-7. PubMed ID: 10337079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Mammographic masses characterization based on localized texture and dataset fractal analysis using linear, neural and support vector machine classifiers.
Mavroforakis ME; Georgiou HV; Dimitropoulos N; Cavouras D; Theodoridis S
Artif Intell Med; 2006 Jun; 37(2):145-62. PubMed ID: 16716579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Breast Density Analysis Using an Automatic Density Segmentation Algorithm.
Oliver A; Tortajada M; Lladó X; Freixenet J; Ganau S; Tortajada L; Vilagran M; Sentís M; Martí R
J Digit Imaging; 2015 Oct; 28(5):604-12. PubMed ID: 25720749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Automatic pectoral muscle segmentation on mediolateral oblique view mammograms.
Kwok SM; Chandrasekhar R; Attikiouzel Y; Rickard MT
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2004 Sep; 23(9):1129-40. PubMed ID: 15377122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Steepest changes of a probability-based cost function for delineation of mammographic masses: a validation study.
Kinnard L; Lo SC; Makariou E; Osicka T; Wang P; Chouikha MF; Freedman MT
Med Phys; 2004 Oct; 31(10):2796-810. PubMed ID: 15543787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers.
Sadaf A; Crystal P; Scaranelo A; Helbich T
Eur J Radiol; 2011 Mar; 77(3):457-61. PubMed ID: 19875260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Variability of breast density assessment in short-term reimaging with digital mammography.
Kim WH; Moon WK; Kim SM; Yi A; Chang JM; Koo HR; Lee SH; Cho N
Eur J Radiol; 2013 Oct; 82(10):1724-30. PubMed ID: 23727379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. The application of fractal analysis to mammographic tissue classification.
Priebe CE; Solka JL; Lorey RA; Rogers GW; Poston WL; Kallergi M; Qian W; Clarke LP; Clark RA
Cancer Lett; 1994 Mar; 77(2-3):183-9. PubMed ID: 8168065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Correspondence in texture features between two mammographic views.
Gupta S; Markey MK
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1598-606. PubMed ID: 16013719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Efficacy of step-oblique mammography for confirmation and localization of densities seen on only one standard mammographic view.
Pearson KL; Sickles EA; Frankel SD; Leung JW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Mar; 174(3):745-52. PubMed ID: 10701619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Location of mammograms ROI's and reduction of false-positive.
Salazar-Licea LA; Pedraza-Ortega JC; Pastrana-Palma A; Aceves-Fernandez MA
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2017 May; 143():97-111. PubMed ID: 28391823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
