238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15243715)
1. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population.
Zonderland HM; Pope TL; Nieborg AJ
Eur Radiol; 2004 Oct; 14(10):1743-50. PubMed ID: 15243715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Automated extraction of BI-RADS final assessment categories from radiology reports with natural language processing.
Sippo DA; Warden GI; Andriole KP; Lacson R; Ikuta I; Birdwell RL; Khorasani R
J Digit Imaging; 2013 Oct; 26(5):989-94. PubMed ID: 23868515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Diagnostic mammography and sonography: concordance of the breast imaging reporting assessments and final clinical outcome].
Lorenzen J; Wedel AK; Lisboa BW; Löning T; Adam G
Rofo; 2005 Nov; 177(11):1545-51. PubMed ID: 16302136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. BI-RADS Category 5 Assessments at Diagnostic Breast Imaging:Outcomes Analysis Based on Lesion Descriptors.
Yao MM; Joe BN; Sickles EA; Lee CS
Acad Radiol; 2019 Aug; 26(8):1048-1052. PubMed ID: 30195413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
Lazarus E; Mainiero MB; Schepps B; Koelliker SL; Livingston LS
Radiology; 2006 May; 239(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 16569780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.
Hooley RJ; Greenberg KL; Stackhouse RM; Geisel JL; Butler RS; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2012 Oct; 265(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 22723501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Value of the US BI-RADS final assessment following mastectomy: BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions.
Gweon HM; Son EJ; Youk JH; Kim JA; Chung J
Acta Radiol; 2012 Apr; 53(3):255-60. PubMed ID: 22302210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses.
Chan CH; Coopey SB; Freer PE; Hughes KS
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Oct; 153(3):699-702. PubMed ID: 26341750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database.
Elezaby M; Li G; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; DeMartini WB
Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):416-422. PubMed ID: 29315061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Role of BI-RADS Ultrasound Subcategories 4A to 4C in Predicting Breast Cancer.
Spinelli Varella MA; Teixeira da Cruz J; Rauber A; Varella IS; Fleck JF; Moreira LF
Clin Breast Cancer; 2018 Aug; 18(4):e507-e511. PubMed ID: 29066139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening.
Altas H; Tureli D; Cengic I; Kucukkaya F; Aribal E; Kaya H
Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1304-1309. PubMed ID: 26019241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.
Raghu M; Durand MA; Andrejeva L; Goehler A; Michalski MH; Geisel JL; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Butler R; Forman HP; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2016 Oct; 281(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 27139264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Can Ultrasound Elastography Help Better Manage Mammographic BI-RADS Category 4 Breast Lesions?
Gu Y; Tian J; Ran H; Ren W; Chang C; Yuan J; Kang C; Deng Y; Wang H; Luo B; Guo S; Zhou Q; Xue E; Zhan W; Zhou Q; Li J; Zhou P; Zhang C; Chen M; Gu Y; Xu J; Chen W; Zhang Y; Li J; Wang H; Jiang Y
Clin Breast Cancer; 2022 Jun; 22(4):e407-e416. PubMed ID: 34815174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB).
Mendez A; Cabanillas F; Echenique M; Malekshamran K; Perez I; Ramos E
Ann Oncol; 2004 Mar; 15(3):450-4. PubMed ID: 14998847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Evaluation of the results after using of the BI-RADS categories in 1,777 clinical mammograms].
Hauth EA; Khan K; Wolfgarten B; Betzler A; Kimmig R; Forsting M
Radiologe; 2008 Mar; 48(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 17265008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk.
Kerlikowske K; Ichikawa L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Vacek PM; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Ballard-Barbash R;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Mar; 99(5):386-95. PubMed ID: 17341730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
