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.
447 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26792823)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Automated Volumetric Breast Density Measurements in the Era of the BI-RADS Fifth Edition: A Comparison With Visual Assessment. Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Kim JA AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 May; 206(5):1056-62. PubMed ID: 26934689 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. BI-RADS Density Classification From Areometric and Volumetric Automatic Breast Density Measurements. Østerås BH; Martinsen AC; Brandal SH; Chaudhry KN; Eben E; Haakenaasen U; Falk RS; Skaane P Acad Radiol; 2016 Apr; 23(4):468-78. PubMed ID: 26847741 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
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. 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]
12. Comparing Visually Assessed BI-RADS Breast Density and Automated Volumetric Breast Density Software: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Breast Cancer Screening Setting. van der Waal D; den Heeten GJ; Pijnappel RM; Schuur KH; Timmers JM; Verbeek AL; Broeders MJ PLoS One; 2015; 10(9):e0136667. PubMed ID: 26335569 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
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. A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification. Ciatto S; Bernardi D; Calabrese M; Durando M; Gentilini MA; Mariscotti G; Monetti F; Moriconi E; Pesce B; Roselli A; Stevanin C; Tapparelli M; Houssami N Breast; 2012 Aug; 21(4):503-6. PubMed ID: 22285387 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Comparison of variability in breast density assessment by BI-RADS category according to the level of experience. Eom HJ; Cha JH; Kang JW; Choi WJ; Kim HJ; Go E Acta Radiol; 2018 May; 59(5):527-532. PubMed ID: 28766978 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]