361 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37129490)
21. Population-wide evaluation of artificial intelligence and radiologist assessment of screening mammograms.
Kühl J; Elhakim MT; Stougaard SW; Rasmussen BSB; Nielsen M; Gerke O; Larsen LB; Graumann O
Eur Radiol; 2024 Jun; 34(6):3935-3946. PubMed ID: 37938386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Determination of similarity measures for pairs of mass lesions on mammograms by use of BI-RADS lesion descriptors and image features.
Muramatsu C; Li Q; Schmidt RA; Shiraishi J; Doi K
Acad Radiol; 2009 Apr; 16(4):443-9. PubMed ID: 19268856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [Evaluation of the results after using of the BI-RADS categories in 1,777 clinical mammograms].
Hauth EA; Khan K; Wolfgarten B; Betzler A; Kimmig R; Forsting M
Radiologe; 2008 Mar; 48(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 17265008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Can an Artificial Intelligence Decision Aid Decrease False-Positive Breast Biopsies?
Heller SL; Wegener M; Babb JS; Gao Y
Ultrasound Q; 2020 Dec; 37(1):10-15. PubMed ID: 33394994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores.
Trieu PDY; Lewis SJ; Li T; Ho K; Tapia KA; Brennan PC
Br J Radiol; 2020 Oct; 93(1114):20200363. PubMed ID: 32730088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting.
Uematsu T; Nakashima K; Harada TL; Nasu H; Igarashi T
Breast Cancer; 2023 Jan; 30(1):46-55. PubMed ID: 36001270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Depiction of breast cancers on digital mammograms by artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis according to cancer characteristics.
Lee SE; Han K; Yoon JH; Youk JH; Kim EK
Eur Radiol; 2022 Nov; 32(11):7400-7408. PubMed ID: 35499564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Differing benefits of artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis for breast US according to workflow and experience level.
Lee SE; Han K; Youk JH; Lee JE; Hwang JY; Rho M; Yoon J; Kim EK; Yoon JH
Ultrasonography; 2022 Oct; 41(4):718-727. PubMed ID: 35850498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in screening mammography in Sweden: a prospective, population-based, paired-reader, non-inferiority study.
Dembrower K; Crippa A; Colón E; Eklund M; Strand F;
Lancet Digit Health; 2023 Oct; 5(10):e703-e711. PubMed ID: 37690911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Range of Radiologist Performance in a Population-based Screening Cohort of 1 Million Digital Mammography Examinations.
Salim M; Dembrower K; Eklund M; Lindholm P; Strand F
Radiology; 2020 Oct; 297(1):33-39. PubMed ID: 32720866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Improving mammography interpretation for both novice and experienced readers: a comparative study of two commercial artificial intelligence software.
Kim HJ; Choi WJ; Gwon HY; Jang SJ; Chae EY; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim HH
Eur Radiol; 2024 Jun; 34(6):3924-3934. PubMed ID: 37938383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors: automated measurement development for full field digital mammography.
Fowler EE; Sellers TA; Lu B; Heine JJ
Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):113502. PubMed ID: 24320473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A deep learning framework to classify breast density with noisy labels regularization.
Lopez-Almazan H; Javier Pérez-Benito F; Larroza A; Perez-Cortes JC; Pollan M; Perez-Gomez B; Salas Trejo D; Casals M; Llobet R
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2022 Jun; 221():106885. PubMed ID: 35594581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database.
Elezaby M; Li G; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; DeMartini WB
Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):416-422. PubMed ID: 29315061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Use of novel artificial intelligence computer-assisted detection (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: an analysis of 17,884 consecutive two-view full-field digital mammography screening exams.
Heywang-Köbrunner SH; Hacker A; Jänsch A; Hertlein M; Mieskes C; Elsner S; Sinnatamby R; Katalinic A
Acta Radiol; 2023 Oct; 64(10):2697-2703. PubMed ID: 37642981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
