BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

300 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26934689)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Fully automated measurements of volumetric breast density adapted for BIRADS 5th edition: a comparison with visual assessment.
    Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Eun NL; Kim JA
    Acta Radiol; 2021 Sep; 62(9):1148-1154. PubMed ID: 32910685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 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. Radiological assessment of breast density by visual classification (BI-RADS) compared to automated volumetric digital software (Quantra): implications for clinical practice.
    Regini E; Mariscotti G; Durando M; Ghione G; Luparia A; Campanino PP; Bianchi CC; Bergamasco L; Fonio P; Gandini G
    Radiol Med; 2014 Oct; 119(10):741-9. PubMed ID: 24610166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Automated Volumetric Mammographic Breast Density Measurements May Underestimate Percent Breast Density for High-density Breasts.
    Rahbar K; Gubern-Merida A; Patrie JT; Harvey JA
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Dec; 24(12):1561-1569. PubMed ID: 28754209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Breast Density Evaluation According to BI-RADS 5th Edition on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: AI Automated Assessment Versus Human Visual Assessment.
    Tari DU; Santonastaso R; De Lucia DR; Santarsiere M; Pinto F
    J Pers Med; 2023 Mar; 13(4):. PubMed ID: 37108994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of Changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (Fourth Versus Fifth Edition) on Breast Density Assessment: Intra- and Interreader Agreements and Density Distribution.
    Irshad A; Leddy R; Ackerman S; Cluver A; Pavic D; Abid A; Lewis MC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Dec; 207(6):1366-1371. PubMed ID: 27656766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.