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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32455552)

  • 1. Subjective Versus Quantitative Methods of Assessing Breast Density.
    Alomaim W; O'Leary D; Ryan J; Rainford L; Evanoff M; Foley S
    Diagnostics (Basel); 2020 May; 10(5):. PubMed ID: 32455552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading.
    Damases CN; Hogg P; McEntee MF
    Br J Radiol; 2017 Aug; 90(1076):20170064. PubMed ID: 28613915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Variability of Breast Density Classification Between US and UK Radiologists.
    Alomaim W; O'Leary D; Ryan J; Rainford L; Evanoff M; Foley S
    J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Mar; 50(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 30777249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 9. Comparing Visually Assessed BI-RADS Breast Density and Automated Volumetric Breast Density Software: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Breast Cancer Screening Setting.
    van der Waal D; den Heeten GJ; Pijnappel RM; Schuur KH; Timmers JM; Verbeek AL; Broeders MJ
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(9):e0136667. PubMed ID: 26335569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of subjective and fully automated methods for measuring mammographic density.
    Moshina N; Roman M; Sebuødegård S; Waade GG; Ursin G; Hofvind S
    Acta Radiol; 2018 Feb; 59(2):154-160. PubMed ID: 28565960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mammographic Breast Density Assessment Using Automated Volumetric Software and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) Categorization by Expert Radiologists.
    Damases CN; Brennan PC; Mello-Thoms C; McEntee MF
    Acad Radiol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):70-7. PubMed ID: 26514436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental Screening.
    Brandt KR; Scott CG; Ma L; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Jensen MR; Whaley DH; Wu FF; Malkov S; Hruska CB; Norman AD; Heine J; Shepherd J; Pankratz VS; Kerlikowske K; Vachon CM
    Radiology; 2016 Jun; 279(3):710-9. PubMed ID: 26694052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Inter-observer variability in mammographic density assessment using Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) synoptic scales.
    Damases CN; Mello-Thoms C; McEntee MF
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2016 Jun; 60(3):329-36. PubMed ID: 27059785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of Qualitative and Volumetric Assessments of Breast Density and Analyses of Breast Compression Parameters and Breast Volume of Women in Bahcesehir Mammography Screening Project.
    Gemici AA; Arıbal E; Özaydın AN; Gürdal SÖ; Özçınar B; Cabioğlu N; Özmen V
    Eur J Breast Health; 2020 Apr; 16(2):110-116. PubMed ID: 32285032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 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. A self-directed learning intervention for radiographers rating mammographic breast density.
    Ekpo EU; Hogg P; Wasike E; McEntee MF
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):337-342. PubMed ID: 28965898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
    Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Frankel SD; Ominsky SH; Sickles EA; Ernster V
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1998 Dec; 90(23):1801-9. PubMed ID: 9839520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.