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.
148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25581957)
1. Computerized calculation of breast density: our experience from Arcadia Medical Imaging Center. Jari I; Ursaru M; Gheorghe L; Naum AG; Negru D Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi; 2014; 118(4):979-85. PubMed ID: 25581957 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. 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]
6. Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full field digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation. Keller BM; Nathan DL; Wang Y; Zheng Y; Gee JC; Conant EF; Kontos D Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):4903-17. PubMed ID: 22894417 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
9. Assessment of a fully automated, high-throughput mammographic density measurement tool for use with processed digital mammograms. Couwenberg AM; Verkooijen HM; Li J; Pijnappel RM; Charaghvandi KR; Hartman M; van Gils CH Cancer Causes Control; 2014 Aug; 25(8):1037-43. PubMed ID: 24962023 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. Baker JA; Kornguth PJ; Floyd CE AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Apr; 166(4):773-8. PubMed ID: 8610547 [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. Statistical evaluation of a fully automated mammographic breast density algorithm. Abdolell M; Tsuruda K; Schaller G; Caines J Comput Math Methods Med; 2013; 2013():651091. PubMed ID: 23737861 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Automated mammographic breast density estimation using a fully convolutional network. Lee J; Nishikawa RM Med Phys; 2018 Mar; 45(3):1178-1190. PubMed ID: 29363774 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mammographic Breast Density Assessment Using Deep Learning: Clinical Implementation. Lehman CD; Yala A; Schuster T; Dontchos B; Bahl M; Swanson K; Barzilay R Radiology; 2019 Jan; 290(1):52-58. PubMed ID: 30325282 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A new method for quantitative analysis of mammographic density. Glide-Hurst CK; Duric N; Littrup P Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4491-8. PubMed ID: 18072514 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Impact of the new density reporting laws: radiologist perceptions and actual behavior. Gur D; Klym AH; King JL; Bandos AI; Sumkin JH Acad Radiol; 2015 Jun; 22(6):679-83. PubMed ID: 25837723 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation. Alshafeiy TI; Wadih A; Nicholson BT; Rochman CM; Peppard HR; Patrie JT; Harvey JA AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jul; 209(1):W36-W41. PubMed ID: 28504593 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]