BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

313 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30770972)

  • 1. A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations.
    Balleyguier C; Arfi-Rouche J; Boyer B; Gauthier E; Helin V; Loshkajian A; Ragusa S; Delaloge S
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Jul; 29(7):3830-3838. PubMed ID: 30770972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Classification of fatty and dense breast parenchyma: comparison of automatic volumetric density measurement and radiologists' classification and their inter-observer variation.
    Østerås BH; Martinsen AC; Brandal SH; Chaudhry KN; Eben E; Haakenaasen U; Falk RS; Skaane P
    Acta Radiol; 2016 Oct; 57(10):1178-85. PubMed ID: 26792823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Assessment of Interradiologist Agreement Regarding Mammographic Breast Density Classification Using the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Atlas.
    Ekpo EU; Ujong UP; Mello-Thoms C; McEntee MF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 May; 206(5):1119-23. PubMed ID: 26999655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Estimation of percentage breast tissue density: comparison between digital mammography (2D full field digital mammography) and digital breast tomosynthesis according to different BI-RADS categories.
    Tagliafico AS; Tagliafico G; Cavagnetto F; Calabrese M; Houssami N
    Br J Radiol; 2013 Nov; 86(1031):20130255. PubMed ID: 24029631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in determining breast density according to the fifth edition of the BI-RADS® Atlas.
    Pesce K; Tajerian M; Chico MJ; Swiecicki MP; Boietti B; Frangella MJ; Benitez S
    Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2020; 62(6):481-486. PubMed ID: 32493654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Automated Volumetric Breast Density Measurements in the Era of the BI-RADS Fifth Edition: A Comparison With Visual Assessment.
    Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Kim JA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 May; 206(5):1056-62. PubMed ID: 26934689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Understanding Clinical Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: a Deep Learning Perspective.
    Mohamed AA; Luo Y; Peng H; Jankowitz RC; Wu S
    J Digit Imaging; 2018 Aug; 31(4):387-392. PubMed ID: 28932980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Comparison between software volumetric breast density estimates in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography images in a large public screening cohort.
    Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Fieselmann A; Lång K; Sartor H
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):330-336. PubMed ID: 29943180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms.
    Redondo A; Comas M; Macià F; Ferrer F; Murta-Nascimento C; Maristany MT; Molins E; Sala M; Castells X
    Br J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 85(1019):1465-70. PubMed ID: 22993385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Validation of a new fully automated software for 2D digital mammographic breast density evaluation in predicting breast cancer risk.
    Giorgi Rossi P; Djuric O; Hélin V; Astley S; Mantellini P; Nitrosi A; Harkness EF; Gauthier E; Puliti D; Balleyguier C; Baron C; Gilbert FJ; Grivegnée A; Pattacini P; Michiels S; Delaloge S
    Sci Rep; 2021 Oct; 11(1):19884. PubMed ID: 34615978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation.
    Alshafeiy TI; Wadih A; Nicholson BT; Rochman CM; Peppard HR; Patrie JT; Harvey JA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jul; 209(1):W36-W41. PubMed ID: 28504593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
    Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Fasciano M; Tagliafico A; Bosco D; Casella C; Bogetti C; Bergamasco L; Fonio P; Gandini G
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):765-773. PubMed ID: 28819781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists' visual assessment: analysis of clinical-radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them.
    Lee HN; Sohn YM; Han KH
    Acta Radiol; 2015 Sep; 56(9):1061-8. PubMed ID: 25338836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.