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.
480 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26133090)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Frankel SD; Ominsky SH; Sickles EA; Ernster V J Natl Cancer Inst; 1998 Dec; 90(23):1801-9. PubMed ID: 9839520 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
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. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Reproducibility of BI-RADS breast density measures among community radiologists: a prospective cohort study. Spayne MC; Gard CC; Skelly J; Miglioretti DL; Vacek PM; Geller BM Breast J; 2012; 18(4):326-33. PubMed ID: 22607064 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
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]