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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25298869)

  • 1. Comparison of Danish dichotomous and BI-RADS classifications of mammographic density.
    Hodge R; Hellmann SS; von Euler-Chelpin M; Vejborg I; Andersen ZJ
    Acta Radiol Short Rep; 2014 Jun; 3(5):2047981614536558. PubMed ID: 25298869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Comparison of subjective and fully automated methods for measuring mammographic density.
    Moshina N; Roman M; Sebuødegård S; Waade GG; Ursin G; Hofvind S
    Acta Radiol; 2018 Feb; 59(2):154-160. PubMed ID: 28565960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Analysis of background echotexture on automated breast ultrasound using BI-RADS and modified classification: Association with clinical features and mammographic density.
    Choi EJ; Choi H; Byon JH; Youk JH
    J Clin Ultrasound; 2023 May; 51(4):687-695. PubMed ID: 37014174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Mammographic Breast Density in Pakistani Women, Factors Affecting It, and Inter-Observer Variability in Assessment.
    Fatima K; Mohsin F; Rao MO; Alvi MI
    Cureus; 2021 Mar; 13(3):e14050. PubMed ID: 33898136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Assessment of Interradiologist Agreement Regarding Mammographic Breast Density Classification Using the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Atlas.
    Ekpo EU; Ujong UP; Mello-Thoms C; McEntee MF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 May; 206(5):1119-23. PubMed ID: 26999655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Deep Learning Models for Automated Assessment of Breast Density Using Multiple Mammographic Image Types.
    Rigaud B; Weaver OO; Dennison JB; Awais M; Anderson BM; Chiang TD; Yang WT; Leung JWT; Hanash SM; Brock KK
    Cancers (Basel); 2022 Oct; 14(20):. PubMed ID: 36291787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.