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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

319 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27388877)

  • 21. Bayesian network to predict breast cancer risk of mammographic microcalcifications and reduce number of benign biopsy results: initial experience.
    Burnside ES; Rubin DL; Fine JP; Shachter RD; Sisney GA; Leung WK
    Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):666-73. PubMed ID: 16926323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Evaluation of an Automated Information Extraction Tool for Imaging Data Elements to Populate a Breast Cancer Screening Registry.
    Lacson R; Harris K; Brawarsky P; Tosteson TD; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Kaye A; Gonzalez I; Birdwell R; Haas JS
    J Digit Imaging; 2015 Oct; 28(5):567-75. PubMed ID: 25561069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?
    Uematsu T; Yuen S; Kasami M; Uchida Y
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Jul; 103(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 17063274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Current Status and Future of BI-RADS in Multimodality Imaging, From the
    Eghtedari M; Chong A; Rakow-Penner R; Ojeda-Fournier H
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Apr; 216(4):860-873. PubMed ID: 33295802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Automatic classification of mammography reports by BI-RADS breast tissue composition class.
    Percha B; Nassif H; Lipson J; Burnside E; Rubin D
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2012; 19(5):913-6. PubMed ID: 22291166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A probabilistic expert system that provides automated mammographic-histologic correlation: initial experience.
    Burnside ES; Rubin DL; Shachter RD; Sohlich RE; Sickles EA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Feb; 182(2):481-8. PubMed ID: 14736686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms.
    Lehman C; Holt S; Peacock S; White E; Urban N
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jul; 179(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 12076896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Extraction of BI-RADS findings from breast ultrasound reports in Chinese using deep learning approaches.
    Miao S; Xu T; Wu Y; Xie H; Wang J; Jing S; Zhang Y; Zhang X; Yang Y; Zhang X; Shan T; Wang L; Xu H; Wang S; Liu Y
    Int J Med Inform; 2018 Nov; 119():17-21. PubMed ID: 30342682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Reassessment and Follow-Up Results of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Detected on Screening Breast Ultrasound.
    Chae EY; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ; Kim HH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Mar; 206(3):666-72. PubMed ID: 26901026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A Probabilistic Model to Support Radiologists' Classification Decisions in Mammography Practice.
    Zeng J; Gimenez F; Burnside ES; Rubin DL; Shachter R
    Med Decis Making; 2019 Apr; 39(3):208-216. PubMed ID: 30819048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population.
    Zonderland HM; Pope TL; Nieborg AJ
    Eur Radiol; 2004 Oct; 14(10):1743-50. PubMed ID: 15243715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database.
    Elezaby M; Li G; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; DeMartini WB
    Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):416-422. PubMed ID: 29315061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Using natural language processing to extract mammographic findings.
    Gao H; Aiello Bowles EJ; Carrell D; Buist DS
    J Biomed Inform; 2015 Apr; 54():77-84. PubMed ID: 25661260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. MRI in the Assessment of BI-RADSĀ® 4 lesions.
    Leithner D; Wengert G; Helbich T; Morris E; Pinker K
    Top Magn Reson Imaging; 2017 Oct; 26(5):191-199. PubMed ID: 28961568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Assessment and Management of Challenging BI-RADS Category 3 Mammographic Lesions.
    Michaels AY; Birdwell RL; Chung CS; Frost EP; Giess CS
    Radiographics; 2016; 36(5):1261-72. PubMed ID: 27541437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Stratification of mammographic computerized analysis by BI-RADS categories.
    Lederman R; Leichter I; Buchbinder S; Novak B; Bamberger P; Fields S
    Eur Radiol; 2003 Feb; 13(2):347-53. PubMed ID: 12599001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.