These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

526 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]
    of 27.