116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9210710)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study.
Boyd NF; Byng JW; Jong RA; Fishell EK; Little LE; Miller AB; Lockwood GA; Tritchler DL; Yaffe MJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1995 May; 87(9):670-5. PubMed ID: 7752271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mammographic texture and risk of breast cancer by tumor type and estrogen receptor status.
Malkov S; Shepherd JA; Scott CG; Tamimi RM; Ma L; Bertrand KA; Couch F; Jensen MR; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Fan B; Norman A; Brandt KR; Pankratz VS; Vachon CM; Kerlikowske K
Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Dec; 18(1):122. PubMed ID: 27923387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Semi-automated and fully automated mammographic density measurement and breast cancer risk prediction.
Llobet R; Pollán M; Antón J; Miranda-García J; Casals M; Martínez I; Ruiz-Perales F; Pérez-Gómez B; Salas-Trejo D; Pérez-Cortés JC
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2014 Sep; 116(2):105-15. PubMed ID: 24636804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Characterization and classification of tumor lesions using computerized fractal-based texture analysis and support vector machines in digital mammograms.
Guo Q; Shao J; Ruiz VF
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2009 Jan; 4(1):11-25. PubMed ID: 20033598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mammographic density and structural features can individually and jointly contribute to breast cancer risk assessment in mammography screening: a case-control study.
Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Petersen K; Lillholm M; Nielsen MB; Lynge E; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
BMC Cancer; 2016 Jul; 16():414. PubMed ID: 27387546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Parenchymal texture analysis in digital mammography: A fully automated pipeline for breast cancer risk assessment.
Zheng Y; Keller BM; Ray S; Wang Y; Conant EF; Gee JC; Kontos D
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):4149-60. PubMed ID: 26133615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of an improved algorithm for producing realistic 3D breast software phantoms: application for mammography.
Bliznakova K; Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Pallikarakis N
Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):5604-17. PubMed ID: 21158272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A novel and fully automated mammographic texture analysis for risk prediction: results from two case-control studies.
Wang C; Brentnall AR; Cuzick J; Harkness EF; Evans DG; Astley S
Breast Cancer Res; 2017 Oct; 19(1):114. PubMed ID: 29047382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. A study on the computerized fractal analysis of architectural distortion in screening mammograms.
Tourassi GD; Delong DM; Floyd CE
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Mar; 51(5):1299-312. PubMed ID: 16481695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Risk stratification of women with false-positive test results in mammography screening based on mammographic morphology and density: A case control study.
Winkel RR; Euler-Chelpin MV; Lynge E; Diao P; Lillholm M; Kallenberg M; Forman JL; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Nielsen M; Vejborg I
Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 49():53-60. PubMed ID: 28558329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Relationship between mammographic and histological risk factors for breast cancer.
Boyd NF; Jensen HM; Cooke G; Han HL
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1992 Aug; 84(15):1170-9. PubMed ID: 1635085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
