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 *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23489767)

  • 1. Semiautomatic estimation of breast density with DM-Scan software.
    Martínez Gómez I; Casals El Busto M; Antón Guirao J; Ruiz Perales F; Llobet Azpitarte R
    Radiologia; 2014; 56(5):429-34. PubMed ID: 23489767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in determining breast density according to the fifth edition of the BI-RADS® Atlas.
    Pesce K; Tajerian M; Chico MJ; Swiecicki MP; Boietti B; Frangella MJ; Benitez S
    Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2020; 62(6):481-486. PubMed ID: 32493654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison between software volumetric breast density estimates in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography images in a large public screening cohort.
    Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Fieselmann A; Lång K; Sartor H
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):330-336. PubMed ID: 29943180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Breast density (BD) assessment with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): Agreement between Quantra™ and 5th edition BI-RADS
    Ekpo EU; Mello-Thoms C; Rickard M; Brennan PC; McEntee MF
    Breast; 2016 Dec; 30():185-190. PubMed ID: 27769015
    [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. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations.
    Balleyguier C; Arfi-Rouche J; Boyer B; Gauthier E; Helin V; Loshkajian A; Ragusa S; Delaloge S
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Jul; 29(7):3830-3838. PubMed ID: 30770972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms.
    Redondo A; Comas M; Macià F; Ferrer F; Murta-Nascimento C; Maristany MT; Molins E; Sala M; Castells X
    Br J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 85(1019):1465-70. PubMed ID: 22993385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of BI-RADS-based subjective visual estimation of amount of fibroglandular breast tissue with magnetic resonance imaging: comparison to automated quantitative assessment.
    Wengert GJ; Helbich TH; Woitek R; Kapetas P; Clauser P; Baltzer PA; Vogl WD; Weber M; Meyer-Baese A; Pinker K
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Nov; 26(11):3917-3922. PubMed ID: 27108300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Mammographic density estimation: comparison among BI-RADS categories, a semi-automated software and a fully automated one.
    Tagliafico A; Tagliafico G; Tosto S; Chiesa F; Martinoli C; Derchi LE; Calabrese M
    Breast; 2009 Feb; 18(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 19010678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Design and clinical validation of a software program for automated measurement of mammographic breast density.
    Araújo ALC; Soares HB; Carvalho DF; Mendonça RM; Oliveira AG
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2020 Mar; 20(1):45. PubMed ID: 32122371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Comparison of variability in breast density assessment by BI-RADS category according to the level of experience.
    Eom HJ; Cha JH; Kang JW; Choi WJ; Kim HJ; Go E
    Acta Radiol; 2018 May; 59(5):527-532. PubMed ID: 28766978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.