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 *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25929945)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists' visual assessment: analysis of clinical-radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them.
    Lee HN; Sohn YM; Han KH
    Acta Radiol; 2015 Sep; 56(9):1061-8. PubMed ID: 25338836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.