519 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16857974)
1. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories.
Martin KE; Helvie MA; Zhou C; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Paramagul C; Blane CE; Klein KA; Sonnad SS; Chan HP
Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):656-65. PubMed ID: 16857974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment.
Gweon HM; Youk JH; Kim JA; Son EJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):692-7. PubMed ID: 23971465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Breast Density Estimation with Fully Automated Volumetric Method: Comparison to Radiologists' Assessment by BI-RADS Categories.
Singh T; Sharma M; Singla V; Khandelwal N
Acad Radiol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):78-83. PubMed ID: 26521687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.
Gard CC; Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Taplin SH; Rutter CM
Breast J; 2015; 21(5):481-9. PubMed ID: 26133090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of Visual Assessment of Breast Density in BI-RADS 4th and 5th Editions With Automated Volumetric Measurement.
Youk JH; Kim SJ; Son EJ; Gweon HM; Kim JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Sep; 209(3):703-708. PubMed ID: 28657850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Classification of fatty and dense breast parenchyma: comparison of automatic volumetric density measurement and radiologists' classification and their inter-observer variation.
Østerås BH; Martinsen AC; Brandal SH; Chaudhry KN; Eben E; Haakenaasen U; Falk RS; Skaane P
Acta Radiol; 2016 Oct; 57(10):1178-85. PubMed ID: 26792823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Automated Volumetric Breast Density Measurements in the Era of the BI-RADS Fifth Edition: A Comparison With Visual Assessment.
Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Kim JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 May; 206(5):1056-62. PubMed ID: 26934689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification.
Sartor H; Lång K; Rosso A; Borgquist S; Zackrisson S; Timberg P
Eur Radiol; 2016 Dec; 26(12):4354-4360. PubMed ID: 27011371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A new method for quantitative analysis of mammographic density.
Glide-Hurst CK; Duric N; Littrup P
Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4491-8. PubMed ID: 18072514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Increased mammographic breast density in acromegaly: quantitative and qualitative assessment.
Tagliafico A; Calabrese M; Tagliafico G; Resmini E; Martinoli C; Rebora A; Colao A; Pivonello R; Ferone D
Eur J Endocrinol; 2011 Mar; 164(3):335-40. PubMed ID: 21156646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS.
Jeffers AM; Sieh W; Lipson JA; Rothstein JH; McGuire V; Whittemore AS; Rubin DL
Radiology; 2017 Feb; 282(2):348-355. PubMed ID: 27598536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography: detection in dependence of the BI-RADS categories.
Obenauer S; Sohns C; Werner C; Grabbe E
Breast J; 2006; 12(1):16-9. PubMed ID: 16409582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental Screening.
Brandt KR; Scott CG; Ma L; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Jensen MR; Whaley DH; Wu FF; Malkov S; Hruska CB; Norman AD; Heine J; Shepherd J; Pankratz VS; Kerlikowske K; Vachon CM
Radiology; 2016 Jun; 279(3):710-9. PubMed ID: 26694052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.
Kerlikowske K; Scott CG; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Ma L; Winham S; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Malkov S; Pankratz VS; Cummings SR; Shepherd JA; Brandt KR; Miglioretti DL; Vachon CM
Ann Intern Med; 2018 Jun; 168(11):757-765. PubMed ID: 29710124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Estimation of percentage breast tissue density: comparison between digital mammography (2D full field digital mammography) and digital breast tomosynthesis according to different BI-RADS categories.
Tagliafico AS; Tagliafico G; Cavagnetto F; Calabrese M; Houssami N
Br J Radiol; 2013 Nov; 86(1031):20130255. PubMed ID: 24029631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Breast lesion shape and margin evaluation: BI-RADS based metrics understate radiologists' actual levels of agreement.
Rawashdeh M; Lewis S; Zaitoun M; Brennan P
Comput Biol Med; 2018 May; 96():294-298. PubMed ID: 29673997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
