191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27184655)
1. Validation of the fifth edition BI-RADS ultrasound lexicon with comparison of fourth and fifth edition diagnostic performance using video clips.
Yoon JH; Kim MJ; Lee HS; Kim SH; Youk JH; Jeong SH; Kim YM
Ultrasonography; 2016 Oct; 35(4):318-26. PubMed ID: 27184655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of Inter-Observer Variability and Diagnostic Performance of the Fifth Edition of BI-RADS for Breast Ultrasound of Static versus Video Images.
Youk JH; Jung I; Yoon JH; Kim SH; Kim YM; Lee EH; Jeong SH; Kim MJ
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 Sep; 42(9):2083-8. PubMed ID: 27324292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Utility of the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Ultrasound Lexicon in Category 4 Breast Lesions: A Prospective Multicenter Study in China.
Gu Y; Tian JW; Ran HT; Ren WD; Chang C; Yuan JJ; Kang CS; Deng YB; Wang H; Luo BM; Guo SL; Zhou Q; Xue ES; Zhan WW; Zhou Q; Li J; Zhou P; Zhang CQ; Chen M; Gu Y; Xu JF; Chen W; Zhang YH; Wang HQ; Li JC; Wang HY; Jiang YX
Acad Radiol; 2022 Jan; 29 Suppl 1():S26-S34. PubMed ID: 32768352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of an automated breast volume scanner according to the fifth edition of BI-RADS for breast ultrasound compared with hand-held ultrasound.
Choi EJ; Choi H; Park EH; Song JS; Youk JH
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Feb; 99():138-145. PubMed ID: 29362145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of inter- and intra-observer variability of breast density assessments using the fourth and fifth editions of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
Alikhassi A; Esmaili Gourabi H; Baikpour M
Eur J Radiol Open; 2018; 5():67-72. PubMed ID: 29707614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
Lazarus E; Mainiero MB; Schepps B; Koelliker SL; Livingston LS
Radiology; 2006 May; 239(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 16569780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.
Hong AS; Rosen EL; Soo MS; Baker JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Apr; 184(4):1260-5. PubMed ID: 15788607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation.
Elverici E; Barça AN; Aktaş H; Özsoy A; Zengin B; Çavuşoğlu M; Araz L
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2015; 21(3):189-94. PubMed ID: 25835079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Predictive performance of BI-RADS magnetic resonance imaging descriptors in the context of suspicious (category 4) findings.
de Almeida JR; Gomes AB; Barros TP; Fahel PE; Rocha Mde S
Radiol Bras; 2016; 49(3):137-43. PubMed ID: 27403012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Scoring system based on BI-RADS lexicon to predict probability of malignancy in suspicious microcalcifications.
Youk JH; Son EJ; Kim JA; Moon HJ; Kim MJ; Choi CH; Kim EK
Ann Surg Oncol; 2012 May; 19(5):1491-8. PubMed ID: 22173328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic Performance of Prototype Handheld Ultrasound According to the Fifth Edition of BI-RADS for Breast Ultrasound Compared with Automated Breast Ultrasound among Females with Positive Lumps.
Ibraheem SA; Mahmud R; Mohamad Saini S; Abu Hassan H; Keiteb AS
Diagnostics (Basel); 2023 Mar; 13(6):. PubMed ID: 36980373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A Pictorial Review of Changes in the BI-RADS Fifth Edition.
Rao AA; Feneis J; Lalonde C; Ojeda-Fournier H
Radiographics; 2016; 36(3):623-39. PubMed ID: 27082663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound.
Lee HJ; Kim EK; Kim MJ; Youk JH; Lee JY; Kang DR; Oh KK
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Feb; 65(2):293-8. PubMed ID: 17531417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. BI-RADS Ultrasound Lexicon Descriptors and Stromal Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.
Candelaria RP; Spak DA; Rauch GM; Huo L; Bassett RL; Santiago L; Scoggins ME; Guirguis MS; Patel MM; Whitman GJ; Moulder SL; Thompson AM; Ravenberg EE; White JB; Abuhadra NK; Valero V; Litton J; Adrada BE; Yang WT
Acad Radiol; 2022 Jan; 29 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S35-S41. PubMed ID: 34272161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Interobserver Variability Between Breast Imagers Using the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS MRI Lexicon.
Grimm LJ; Anderson AL; Baker JA; Johnson KS; Walsh R; Yoon SC; Ghate SV
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 May; 204(5):1120-4. PubMed ID: 25905951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of retraction phenomenon and BI-RADS-US descriptors in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses using an automated breast volume scanner.
Zheng FY; Yan LX; Huang BJ; Xia HS; Wang X; Lu Q; Li CX; Wang WP
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Nov; 84(11):2123-9. PubMed ID: 26272029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Prospective study of AI-assisted prediction of breast malignancies in physical health examinations: role of off-the-shelf AI software and comparison to radiologist performance.
Ma S; Li Y; Yin J; Niu Q; An Z; Du L; Li F; Gu J
Front Oncol; 2024; 14():1374278. PubMed ID: 38756651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast lesions of BI-RADS 4].
Liang YC; Jia CM; Xue Y; Lü Q; Chen F; Wang JJ
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2018 May; 98(19):1498-1502. PubMed ID: 29804418
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. BI-RADS Category 5 Assessments at Diagnostic Breast Imaging:Outcomes Analysis Based on Lesion Descriptors.
Yao MM; Joe BN; Sickles EA; Lee CS
Acad Radiol; 2019 Aug; 26(8):1048-1052. PubMed ID: 30195413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
