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.
247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27824483)
1. Using Volumetric Breast Density to Quantify the Potential Masking Risk of Mammographic Density. Destounis S; Johnston L; Highnam R; Arieno A; Morgan R; Chan A AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jan; 208(1):222-227. PubMed ID: 27824483 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
10. 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]
11. Derived mammographic masking measures based on simulated lesions predict the risk of interval cancer after controlling for known risk factors: a case-case analysis. Hinton B; Ma L; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Malkov S; Fan B; Greenwood H; Joe B; Lee V; Strand F; Kerlikowske K; Shepherd J Med Phys; 2019 Mar; 46(3):1309-1316. PubMed ID: 30697755 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the association between mammographic density and the risk of breast cancer using Quantra software and the BI-RADS classification. Wang JM; Zhao HG; Liu TT; Wang FY Medicine (Baltimore); 2020 Nov; 99(46):e23112. PubMed ID: 33181680 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening. Altas H; Tureli D; Cengic I; Kucukkaya F; Aribal E; Kaya H Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1304-1309. PubMed ID: 26019241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Automated Volumetric Analysis of Mammographic Density in a Screening Setting: Worse Outcomes for Women with Dense Breasts. Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Lee CI; Akslen LA; Tsuruda KM; Elmore JG; Hofvind S Radiology; 2018 Aug; 288(2):343-352. PubMed ID: 29944088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Utility of BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions for Screening Breast MRI. Strigel RM; Burnside ES; Elezaby M; Fowler AM; Kelcz F; Salkowski LR; DeMartini WB AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1392-1399. PubMed ID: 28792802 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The effect of volumetric breast density on the risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancers: a cohort study. Wanders JOP; Holland K; Karssemeijer N; Peeters PHM; Veldhuis WB; Mann RM; van Gils CH Breast Cancer Res; 2017 Jun; 19(1):67. PubMed ID: 28583146 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Quantification of masking risk in screening mammography with volumetric breast density maps. Holland K; van Gils CH; Mann RM; Karssemeijer N Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Apr; 162(3):541-548. PubMed ID: 28161786 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]