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 *

173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18035541)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.
    Berg WA; Campassi C; Langenberg P; Sexton MJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Jun; 174(6):1769-77. PubMed ID: 10845521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effects of Changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (Fourth Versus Fifth Edition) on Breast Density Assessment: Intra- and Interreader Agreements and Density Distribution.
    Irshad A; Leddy R; Ackerman S; Cluver A; Pavic D; Abid A; Lewis MC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Dec; 207(6):1366-1371. PubMed ID: 27656766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors: automated measurement development for full field digital mammography.
    Fowler EE; Sellers TA; Lu B; Heine JJ
    Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):113502. PubMed ID: 24320473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A dedicated BI-RADS training programme: effect on the inter-observer variation among screening radiologists.
    Timmers JM; van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ; Verbeek AL; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ
    Eur J Radiol; 2012 Sep; 81(9):2184-8. PubMed ID: 21899969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Reader variability in reporting breast imaging according to BI-RADS assessment categories (the Florence experience).
    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; 2006 Feb; 15(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 16076556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.
    Sacchetto D; Morra L; Agliozzo S; Bernardi D; Björklund T; Brancato B; Bravetti P; Carbonaro LA; Correale L; Fantò C; Favettini E; Martincich L; Milanesio L; Mombelloni S; Monetti F; Morrone D; Pellegrini M; Pesce B; Petrillo A; Saguatti G; Stevanin C; Trimboli RM; Tuttobene P; Valentini M; Marra V; Frigerio A; Bert A; Sardanelli F
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Jan; 26(1):175-83. PubMed ID: 25929945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. International Interobserver Variability of Breast Density Assessment.
    Portnow LH; Choridah L; Kardinah K; Handarini T; Pijnappel R; Bluekens AMJ; Duijm LEM; Schoub PK; Smilg PS; Malek L; Leung JWT; Raza S
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2023 Jul; 20(7):671-684. PubMed ID: 37127220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Interobserver variability in upgraded and non-upgraded BI-RADS 3 lesions.
    Michaels AY; Chung CSW; Frost EP; Birdwell RL; Giess CS
    Clin Radiol; 2017 Aug; 72(8):694.e1-694.e6. PubMed ID: 28381334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Variability of Breast Density Classification Between US and UK Radiologists.
    Alomaim W; O'Leary D; Ryan J; Rainford L; Evanoff M; Foley S
    J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Mar; 50(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 30777249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of breast density assessment between human eye and automated software on digital and synthetic mammography: Impact on breast cancer risk.
    Le Boulc'h M; Bekhouche A; Kermarrec E; Milon A; Abdel Wahab C; Zilberman S; Chabbert-Buffet N; Thomassin-Naggara I
    Diagn Interv Imaging; 2020 Dec; 101(12):811-819. PubMed ID: 32819886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses.
    Abdullah N; Mesurolle B; El-Khoury M; Kao E
    Radiology; 2009 Sep; 252(3):665-72. PubMed ID: 19567644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. A Reliability Comparison of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Mammography: Breast Density Assessment Referring to the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Atlas.
    Ma Y; Cao Y; Liu A; Yin L; Han P; Li H; Zhang X; Ye Z
    Acad Radiol; 2019 Jun; 26(6):752-759. PubMed ID: 30220584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.