159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27279675)
1. Discriminatory power of common genetic variants in personalized breast cancer diagnosis.
Wu Y; Abbey CK; Liu J; Ong I; Peissig P; Onitilo AA; Fan J; Yuan M; Burnside ES
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2016 Feb; 9787():. PubMed ID: 27279675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparing Mammography Abnormality Features to Genetic Variants in the Prediction of Breast Cancer in Women Recommended for Breast Biopsy.
Burnside ES; Liu J; Wu Y; Onitilo AA; McCarty CA; Page CD; Peissig PL; Trentham-Dietz A; Kitchner T; Fan J; Yuan M
Acad Radiol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):62-9. PubMed ID: 26514439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. External validation of a publicly available computer assisted diagnostic tool for mammographic mass lesions with two high prevalence research datasets.
Benndorf M; Burnside ES; Herda C; Langer M; Kotter E
Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4987-96. PubMed ID: 26233224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.
Kerlikowske K; Scott CG; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Ma L; Winham S; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Malkov S; Pankratz VS; Cummings SR; Shepherd JA; Brandt KR; Miglioretti DL; Vachon CM
Ann Intern Med; 2018 Jun; 168(11):757-765. PubMed ID: 29710124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Genetic variants improve breast cancer risk prediction on mammograms.
Liu J; Page D; Nassif H; Shavlik J; Peissig P; McCarty C; Onitilo AA; Burnside E
AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2013; 2013():876-85. PubMed ID: 24551380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Developing a clinical utility framework to evaluate prediction models in radiogenomics.
Wu Y; Liu J; Del Rio AM; Page DC; Alagoz O; Peissig P; Onitilo AA; Burnside ES
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2015 Feb; 9416():. PubMed ID: 27095854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Role of Clinical and Imaging Risk Factors in Predicting Breast Cancer Diagnosis Among BI-RADS 4 Cases.
Hsu W; Zhou X; Petruse A; Chau N; Lee-Felker S; Hoyt A; Wenger N; Elashoff D; Naeim A
Clin Breast Cancer; 2019 Feb; 19(1):e142-e151. PubMed ID: 30366654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Scoring System to Stratify Malignancy Risks for Mammographic Microcalcifications Based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 5th Edition Descriptors.
Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Eun NL; Choi EJ; Kim JA
Korean J Radiol; 2019 Dec; 20(12):1646-1652. PubMed ID: 31854152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description.
Baker JA; Kornguth PJ; Floyd CE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Apr; 166(4):773-8. PubMed ID: 8610547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers.
Giger ML; Inciardi MF; Edwards A; Papaioannou J; Drukker K; Jiang Y; Brem R; Brown JB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jun; 206(6):1341-50. PubMed ID: 27043979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk.
Kerlikowske K; Ichikawa L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Vacek PM; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Ballard-Barbash R;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Mar; 99(5):386-95. PubMed ID: 17341730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms.
McCarthy AM; Keller B; Kontos D; Boghossian L; McGuire E; Bristol M; Chen J; Domchek S; Armstrong K
Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Jan; 17(1):1. PubMed ID: 25567532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparing the value of mammographic features and genetic variants in breast cancer risk prediction.
Wu Y; Liu J; Page D; Peissig P; McCarty C; Onitilo AA; Burnside ES
AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2014; 2014():1228-37. PubMed ID: 25954434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Nonmasslike enhancement at breast MR imaging: the added value of mammography and US for lesion categorization.
Thomassin-Naggara I; Trop I; Chopier J; David J; Lalonde L; Darai E; Rouzier R; Uzan S
Radiology; 2011 Oct; 261(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 21771958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
