128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17616811)
1. Reproducibility of visual assessment on mammographic density.
Gao J; Warren R; Warren-Forward H; Forbes JF
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2008 Mar; 108(1):121-7. PubMed ID: 17616811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of mammographic density patterns: reproducibility and concordance among scales.
Garrido-Estepa M; Ruiz-Perales F; Miranda J; Ascunce N; González-Román I; Sánchez-Contador C; Santamariña C; Moreo P; Vidal C; Peris M; Moreno MP; Váquez-Carrete JA; Collado-García F; Casanova F; Ederra M; Salas D; Pollán M;
BMC Cancer; 2010 Sep; 10():485. PubMed ID: 20836850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Percentage density, Wolfe's and Tabár's mammographic patterns: agreement and association with risk factors for breast cancer.
Gram IT; Bremnes Y; Ursin G; Maskarinec G; Bjurstam N; Lund E
Breast Cancer Res; 2005; 7(5):R854-61. PubMed ID: 16168132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Women's features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN).
Pérez-Gómez B; Ruiz F; Martínez I; Casals M; Miranda J; Sánchez-Contador C; Vidal C; Llobet R; Pollán M; Salas D
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2012 Feb; 132(1):287-95. PubMed ID: 22042363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Volumetric breast density assessment: reproducibility in serial examinations and comparison with visual assessment.
Singh JM; Fallenberg EM; Diekmann F; Renz DM; Witlandt R; Bick U; Engelken F
Rofo; 2013 Sep; 185(9):844-8. PubMed ID: 23888472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A self-directed learning intervention for radiographers rating mammographic breast density.
Ekpo EU; Hogg P; Wasike E; McEntee MF
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):337-342. PubMed ID: 28965898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Apruzzese A; Bassetti E; Brancato B; Carozzi F; Catarzi S; Lamberini MP; Marcelli G; Pellizzoni R; Pesce B; Risso G; Russo F; Scorsolini A
Breast; 2005 Aug; 14(4):269-75. PubMed ID: 16085233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast density: agreement of measures from film and digital image.
Jeffreys M; Warren R; Smith GD; Gunnell D
Br J Radiol; 2003 Aug; 76(908):561-3. PubMed ID: 12893699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Observer variation in the classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns.
Boyd NF; Wolfson C; Moskowitz M; Carlile T; Petitclerc C; Ferri HA; Fishell E; Gregoire A; Kiernan M; Longley JD
J Chronic Dis; 1986; 39(6):465-72. PubMed ID: 3711253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a comparison of methods of assessment.
Lee-Han H; Cooke G; Boyd NF
Eur J Cancer Prev; 1995 Aug; 4(4):285-92. PubMed ID: 7549820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Inter- and intra-observer variability of qualitative visual breast-composition assessment in mammography among Japanese physicians: a first multi-institutional observer performance study in Japan.
Koyama Y; Nakashima K; Orihara S; Tsunoda H; Kimura F; Uenaka N; Ban K; Michishita Y; Kanemaki Y; Kurihara A; Tawaraya K; Taguri M; Ishikawa T; Uematsu T
Breast Cancer; 2024 Jul; 31(4):671-683. PubMed ID: 38619787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Effect of postmenopausal hormonal replacement therapy on mammographic density and parenchymal pattern.
Laya MB; Gallagher JC; Schreiman JS; Larson EB; Watson P; Weinstein L
Radiology; 1995 Aug; 196(2):433-7. PubMed ID: 7617857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of Training on Qualitative Mammographic Density Assessment.
Raza S; Mackesy MM; Winkler NS; Hurwitz S; Birdwell RL
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Mar; 13(3):310-5. PubMed ID: 26944039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Inter-observer variability in mammographic density assessment using Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) synoptic scales.
Damases CN; Mello-Thoms C; McEntee MF
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2016 Jun; 60(3):329-36. PubMed ID: 27059785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessment of mammographic density changes on plain film mammograms in postmenopausal women on hormone replacement therapy.
Orguc S; Goktan C; Ovali GY; Karaer O; Oruc S
Indian J Med Res; 2006 Nov; 124(5):545-52. PubMed ID: 17213523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of mammographic breast density analysis: results of formal operator training.
Prevrhal S; Shepherd JA; Smith-Bindman R; Cummings SR; Kerlikowske K
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2002 Nov; 11(11):1389-93. PubMed ID: 12433716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mammographic density correlation with Gail model breast cancer risk estimates and component risk factors.
Palomares MR; Machia JR; Lehman CD; Daling JR; McTiernan A
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2006 Jul; 15(7):1324-30. PubMed ID: 16835331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
