132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31754515)
1. Measuring breast density: Comparing computer-automated breast density quantification with an observer-based method in a South African academic context.
Prinsloo E; Minné C; Greeff W
SA J Radiol; 2018; 22(2):1358. PubMed ID: 31754515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of inter- and intra-observer variability of breast density assessments using the fourth and fifth editions of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
Alikhassi A; Esmaili Gourabi H; Baikpour M
Eur J Radiol Open; 2018; 5():67-72. PubMed ID: 29707614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Mammographic density estimation: comparison among BI-RADS categories, a semi-automated software and a fully automated one.
Tagliafico A; Tagliafico G; Tosto S; Chiesa F; Martinoli C; Derchi LE; Calabrese M
Breast; 2009 Feb; 18(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 19010678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Persistent inter-observer variability of breast density assessment using BI-RADS® 5th edition guidelines.
Portnow LH; Georgian-Smith D; Haider I; Barrios M; Bay CP; Nelson KP; Raza S
Clin Imaging; 2022 Mar; 83():21-27. PubMed ID: 34952487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of BI-RADS-based subjective visual estimation of amount of fibroglandular breast tissue with magnetic resonance imaging: comparison to automated quantitative assessment.
Wengert GJ; Helbich TH; Woitek R; Kapetas P; Clauser P; Baltzer PA; Vogl WD; Weber M; Meyer-Baese A; Pinker K
Eur Radiol; 2016 Nov; 26(11):3917-3922. PubMed ID: 27108300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Inter-observer agreement according to three methods of evaluating mammographic density and parenchymal pattern in a case control study: impact on relative risk of breast cancer.
Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Diao P; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
BMC Cancer; 2015 Apr; 15():274. PubMed ID: 25884160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Comparison of variability in breast density assessment by BI-RADS category according to the level of experience.
Eom HJ; Cha JH; Kang JW; Choi WJ; Kim HJ; Go E
Acta Radiol; 2018 May; 59(5):527-532. PubMed ID: 28766978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Breast density (BD) assessment with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): Agreement between Quantra™ and 5th edition BI-RADS
Ekpo EU; Mello-Thoms C; Rickard M; Brennan PC; McEntee MF
Breast; 2016 Dec; 30():185-190. PubMed ID: 27769015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of breast density assessments according to BI-RADS 4th and 5th editions and experience level.
Gemici AA; Bayram E; Hocaoglu E; Inci E
Acta Radiol Open; 2020 Jul; 9(7):2058460120937381. PubMed ID: 32733694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study.
Skaane P; Gullien R; Eben EB; Sandhaug M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Stoeblen F
Acta Radiol; 2015 Apr; 56(4):404-12. PubMed ID: 24682405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
