174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12599001)
1. Stratification of mammographic computerized analysis by BI-RADS categories.
Lederman R; Leichter I; Buchbinder S; Novak B; Bamberger P; Fields S
Eur Radiol; 2003 Feb; 13(2):347-53. PubMed ID: 12599001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Computer aided classification system for breast ultrasound based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS).
Shen WC; Chang RF; Moon WK
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2007 Nov; 33(11):1688-98. PubMed ID: 17681678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.
Nicholson BT; LoRusso AP; Smolkin M; Bovbjerg VE; Petroni GR; Harvey JA
Acad Radiol; 2006 Sep; 13(9):1143-9. PubMed ID: 16935726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Stereotactic Mammotome breast biopsy: routine clinical experience and correlation with BI-RADS--classification and histopathology].
Michel SC; Löw R; Singer G; Otto R; Hohl M; Kubik RA
Praxis (Bern 1994); 2007 Sep; 96(39):1459-74. PubMed ID: 17966279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications.
Cilotti A; Iacconi C; Marini C; Moretti M; Mazzotta D; Traino C; Naccarato AG; Piagneri V; Giaconi C; Bevilacqua G; Bartolozzi C
Radiol Med; 2007 Mar; 112(2):272-86. PubMed ID: 17361370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Scoring System to Stratify Malignancy Risks for Mammographic Microcalcifications Based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 5th Edition Descriptors.
Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Eun NL; Choi EJ; Kim JA
Korean J Radiol; 2019 Dec; 20(12):1646-1652. PubMed ID: 31854152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Bayesian probability of malignancy with BI-RADS sonographic features.
Bouzghar G; Levenback BJ; Sultan LR; Venkatesh SS; Cwanger A; Conant EF; Sehgal CM
J Ultrasound Med; 2014 Apr; 33(4):641-8. PubMed ID: 24658943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Scoring system based on BI-RADS lexicon to predict probability of malignancy in suspicious microcalcifications.
Youk JH; Son EJ; Kim JA; Moon HJ; Kim MJ; Choi CH; Kim EK
Ann Surg Oncol; 2012 May; 19(5):1491-8. PubMed ID: 22173328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A computer-aided diagnosis system for breast ultrasound based on weighted BI-RADS classes.
Rodríguez-Cristerna A; Gómez-Flores W; de Albuquerque Pereira WC
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2018 Jan; 153():33-40. PubMed ID: 29157459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Breast masses: computer-aided diagnosis with serial mammograms.
Hadjiiski L; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Chan HP; Roubidoux MA; Paramagul C; Blane C; Petrick N; Bailey J; Klein K; Foster M; Patterson SK; Adler D; Nees AV; Shen J
Radiology; 2006 Aug; 240(2):343-56. PubMed ID: 16801362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?
Berg WA; D'Orsi CJ; Jackson VP; Bassett LW; Beam CA; Lewis RS; Crewson PE
Radiology; 2002 Sep; 224(3):871-80. PubMed ID: 12202727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions.
Zuley ML; Bandos AI; Ganott MA; Sumkin JH; Kelly AE; Catullo VJ; Rathfon GY; Lu AH; Gur D
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):89-95. PubMed ID: 23143023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications.
Pijnappel RM; Peeters PH; Hendriks JH; Mali WP
Br J Radiol; 2004 Apr; 77(916):312-4. PubMed ID: 15107321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Bayesian network to predict breast cancer risk of mammographic microcalcifications and reduce number of benign biopsy results: initial experience.
Burnside ES; Rubin DL; Fine JP; Shachter RD; Sisney GA; Leung WK
Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):666-73. PubMed ID: 16926323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improved mammographic interpretation of masses using computer-aided diagnosis.
Leichter I; Fields S; Nirel R; Bamberger P; Novak B; Lederman R; Buchbinder S
Eur Radiol; 2000; 10(2):377-83. PubMed ID: 10663772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice.
Mendez A; Cabanillas F; Echenique M; Malekshamran K; Perez I; Ramos E
Cancer; 2004 Feb; 100(4):710-4. PubMed ID: 14770425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Quantitative ultrasound analysis for classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast masses.
Moon WK; Lo CM; Chang JM; Huang CS; Chen JH; Chang RF
J Digit Imaging; 2013 Dec; 26(6):1091-8. PubMed ID: 23494603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.
Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK
Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
