213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23591619)
1. Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings.
Timmers JM; Verbeek AL; IntHout J; Pijnappel RM; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Eur Radiol; 2013 Sep; 23(9):2413-9. PubMed ID: 23591619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A bimodal nomogram as an adjunct tool to reduce unnecessary breast biopsy following discordant ultrasonic and mammographic BI-RADS assessment.
Xu Z; Lin Y; Huo J; Gao Y; Lu J; Liang Y; Li L; Jiang Z; Du L; Lang T; Wen G; Li Y
Eur Radiol; 2024 Apr; 34(4):2608-2618. PubMed ID: 37840099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Inter-reader Variability in the Use of BI-RADS Descriptors for Suspicious Findings on Diagnostic Mammography: A Multi-institution Study of 10 Academic Radiologists.
Lee AY; Wisner DJ; Aminololama-Shakeri S; Arasu VA; Feig SA; Hargreaves J; Ojeda-Fournier H; Bassett LW; Wells CJ; De Guzman J; Flowers CI; Campbell JE; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN
Acad Radiol; 2017 Jan; 24(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 27793579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool.
Timmers JM; van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ; Zonderland HM; van Tinteren H; Visser O; Verbeek AL; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ
Eur Radiol; 2012 Aug; 22(8):1717-23. PubMed ID: 22415412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mammographic density and structural features can individually and jointly contribute to breast cancer risk assessment in mammography screening: a case-control study.
Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Petersen K; Lillholm M; Nielsen MB; Lynge E; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
BMC Cancer; 2016 Jul; 16():414. PubMed ID: 27387546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The Impact of Mammographic, Radiologist, and Patient Factors on the Likelihood of Probably Benign (BI-RADS 3) Assessment at Diagnostic Mammography.
Chesebro AL; Abbasi N; Lacson R; Chikarmane SA; Licaros ARL; Giess CS
J Breast Imaging; 2024 May; 6(3):246-253. PubMed ID: 38655858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mammographic breast density: How it affects performance indicators in screening programmes?
Posso M; Louro J; Sánchez M; Román M; Vidal C; Sala M; Baré M; Castells X;
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 110():81-87. PubMed ID: 30599878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. A nomogram to predict for malignant diagnosis of BI-RADS Category 4 breast lesions.
Mazouni C; Sneige N; Rouzier R; Balleyguier C; Bevers T; André F; Vielh P; Delaloge S
J Surg Oncol; 2010 Sep; 102(3):220-4. PubMed ID: 20740578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Mammographic calcifications undergoing percutaneous biopsy: outcome in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer.
Bertani V; Berger N; Eberhard M; Lång K; Urbani M; La Grassa M; Balestreri L; Boss A; Frauenfelder T; Marcon M
Radiol Med; 2023 Feb; 128(2):149-159. PubMed ID: 36598734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Risk stratification of women with false-positive test results in mammography screening based on mammographic morphology and density: A case control study.
Winkel RR; Euler-Chelpin MV; Lynge E; Diao P; Lillholm M; Kallenberg M; Forman JL; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Nielsen M; Vejborg I
Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 49():53-60. PubMed ID: 28558329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Scoring System to Stratify Malignancy Risks for Mammographic Microcalcifications Based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 5th Edition Descriptors.
Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Eun NL; Choi EJ; Kim JA
Korean J Radiol; 2019 Dec; 20(12):1646-1652. PubMed ID: 31854152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A New Computer-Aided Diagnosis System with Modified Genetic Feature Selection for BI-RADS Classification of Breast Masses in Mammograms.
Boumaraf S; Liu X; Ferkous C; Ma X
Biomed Res Int; 2020; 2020():7695207. PubMed ID: 32462017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk.
Kerlikowske K; Ichikawa L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Vacek PM; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Ballard-Barbash R;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Mar; 99(5):386-95. PubMed ID: 17341730
[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. Predicting Breast Cancer in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Ultrasound Category 4 or 5 Lesions: A Nomogram Combining Radiomics and BI-RADS.
Luo WQ; Huang QX; Huang XW; Hu HT; Zeng FQ; Wang W
Sci Rep; 2019 Aug; 9(1):11921. PubMed ID: 31417138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
