183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30268720)
1. Variability in Individual Radiologist BI-RADS 3 Usage at a Large Academic Center: What's the Cause and What Should We Do About It?
Ambinder EB; Mullen LA; Falomo E; Myers K; Hung J; Lee B; Harvey SC
Acad Radiol; 2019 Jul; 26(7):915-922. PubMed ID: 30268720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Inter-reader Variability in the Use of BI-RADS Descriptors for Suspicious Findings on Diagnostic Mammography: A Multi-institution Study of 10 Academic Radiologists.
Lee AY; Wisner DJ; Aminololama-Shakeri S; Arasu VA; Feig SA; Hargreaves J; Ojeda-Fournier H; Bassett LW; Wells CJ; De Guzman J; Flowers CI; Campbell JE; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN
Acad Radiol; 2017 Jan; 24(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 27793579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Impact of Mammographic, Radiologist, and Patient Factors on the Likelihood of Probably Benign (BI-RADS 3) Assessment at Diagnostic Mammography.
Chesebro AL; Abbasi N; Lacson R; Chikarmane SA; Licaros ARL; Giess CS
J Breast Imaging; 2024 May; 6(3):246-253. PubMed ID: 38655858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.
Gard CC; Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Taplin SH; Rutter CM
Breast J; 2015; 21(5):481-9. PubMed ID: 26133090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Patient, Radiologist, and Examination Characteristics Affecting Screening Mammography Recall Rates in a Large Academic Practice.
Giess CS; Wang A; Ip IK; Lacson R; Pourjabbar S; Khorasani R
J Am Coll Radiol; 2019 Apr; 16(4 Pt A):411-418. PubMed ID: 30037704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
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]
8. BI-RADS 3 (short-interval follow-up) assessment rate at diagnostic mammography: Correlation with recall rates and utilization as a performance benchmark.
Kirshenbaum K; Harris K; Harmon J; Monge J; Dabbous F; Liu Y
Breast J; 2020 Jul; 26(7):1284-1288. PubMed ID: 32291841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.
Raghu M; Durand MA; Andrejeva L; Goehler A; Michalski MH; Geisel JL; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Butler R; Forman HP; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2016 Oct; 281(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 27139264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Diagnostic performance of breast technologists in reading mammograms in a clinical patient population.
van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Flobbe K
Int J Clin Pract; 2010 Mar; 64(4):442-50. PubMed ID: 20456190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Can Radiologists Predict the Presence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Invasive Breast Cancer?
Aminololama-Shakeri S; Flowers CI; McLaren CE; Wisner DJ; de Guzman J; Campbell JE; Bassett LW; Ojeda-Fournier H; Gerlach K; Hargreaves J; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN; Feig SA; Wells CJ;
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Apr; 208(4):933-939. PubMed ID: 28199152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
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. Using the BI-RADS lexicon in a restrictive form of double reading as a strategy for minimizing screening mammography recall rates.
Ghate SV; Baker JA; Kim CE; Johnson KS; Walsh R; Soo MS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Apr; 198(4):962-70. PubMed ID: 22451567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast lesion shape and margin evaluation: BI-RADS based metrics understate radiologists' actual levels of agreement.
Rawashdeh M; Lewis S; Zaitoun M; Brennan P
Comput Biol Med; 2018 May; 96():294-298. PubMed ID: 29673997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Weinstein SP; Schnall MD; Conant EF
Radiology; 2017 Dec; 285(3):778-787. PubMed ID: 28715278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Jeffries DO; Klein KA; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA
Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1372-1379. PubMed ID: 28647388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Imaging and Histopathologic Features of BI-RADS 3 Lesions Upgraded during Imaging Surveillance.
Michaels A; Chung CS; Birdwell RL; Frost EP; Giess CS
Breast J; 2017 Jan; 23(1):10-16. PubMed ID: 27612001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
