170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38687216)
1. BI-RADS Category Assignments by GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard: A Multilanguage Study.
Cozzi A; Pinker K; Hidber A; Zhang T; Bonomo L; Lo Gullo R; Christianson B; Curti M; Rizzo S; Del Grande F; Mann RM; Schiaffino S
Radiology; 2024 Apr; 311(1):e232133. PubMed ID: 38687216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.
Berg WA; Berg JM; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Rosenberg RD; Lee CS
Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 32427557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Imaging Phenotypes in Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer on Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Fifth Edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
Marino MA; Riedl CC; Bernathova M; Bernhart C; Baltzer PAT; Helbich TH; Pinker K
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 106():150-159. PubMed ID: 30150038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
Lazarus E; Mainiero MB; Schepps B; Koelliker SL; Livingston LS
Radiology; 2006 May; 239(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 16569780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Characteristics, Malignancy Rate, and Follow-up of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Identified at Breast MR Imaging: Implications for MR Image Interpretation and Management.
Chikarmane SA; Birdwell RL; Poole PS; Sippo DA; Giess CS
Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):707-15. PubMed ID: 27089027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists.
Neuschler EI; Butler R; Young CA; Barke LD; Bertrand ML; Böhm-Vélez M; Destounis S; Donlan P; Grobmyer SR; Katzen J; Kist KA; Lavin PT; Makariou EV; Parris TM; Schilling KJ; Tucker FL; Dogan BE
Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):398-412. PubMed ID: 29178816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Automatic classification and prioritisation of actionable BI-RADS categories using natural language processing models.
López-Úbeda P; Martín-Noguerol T; Luna A
Clin Radiol; 2024 Jan; 79(1):e1-e7. PubMed ID: 37838546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Ultrasound positive predictive values by BI-RADS categories 3-5 for solid masses: An independent reader study.
Stavros AT; Freitas AG; deMello GGN; Barke L; McDonald D; Kaske T; Wolverton D; Honick A; Stanzani D; Padovan AH; Moura APC; de Campos MCV
Eur Radiol; 2017 Oct; 27(10):4307-4315. PubMed ID: 28396996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon for breast MRI: interobserver variability in the description and assignment of BI-RADS category.
El Khoury M; Lalonde L; David J; Labelle M; Mesurolle B; Trop I
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Jan; 84(1):71-76. PubMed ID: 25454100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. BI-RADS Category 5 Assessments at Diagnostic Breast Imaging:Outcomes Analysis Based on Lesion Descriptors.
Yao MM; Joe BN; Sickles EA; Lee CS
Acad Radiol; 2019 Aug; 26(8):1048-1052. PubMed ID: 30195413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Current Status and Future of BI-RADS in Multimodality Imaging, From the
Eghtedari M; Chong A; Rakow-Penner R; Ojeda-Fournier H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Apr; 216(4):860-873. PubMed ID: 33295802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Automated extraction of BI-RADS final assessment categories from radiology reports with natural language processing.
Sippo DA; Warden GI; Andriole KP; Lacson R; Ikuta I; Birdwell RL; Khorasani R
J Digit Imaging; 2013 Oct; 26(5):989-94. PubMed ID: 23868515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Differential Diagnosis of Breast Category 3 and 4 Nodules Through BI-RADS Classification in Conjunction with Shear Wave Elastography.
Wang M; Yang Z; Liu C; Yan J; Zhang W; Sun J; Cui G
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 43(3):601-606. PubMed ID: 27988221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Automation Bias in Mammography: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence BI-RADS Suggestions on Reader Performance.
Dratsch T; Chen X; Rezazade Mehrizi M; Kloeckner R; Mähringer-Kunz A; Püsken M; Baeßler B; Sauer S; Maintz D; Pinto Dos Santos D
Radiology; 2023 May; 307(4):e222176. PubMed ID: 37129490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Performance evaluation of ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Bard on the official board examination of the Japan Radiology Society.
Toyama Y; Harigai A; Abe M; Nagano M; Kawabata M; Seki Y; Takase K
Jpn J Radiol; 2024 Feb; 42(2):201-207. PubMed ID: 37792149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Downgrading and Upgrading Gray-Scale Ultrasound BI-RADS Categories of Benign and Malignant Masses With Optoacoustics: A Pilot Study.
Neuschler EI; Lavin PT; Tucker FL; Barke LD; Bertrand ML; Böhm-Vélez M; Destounis S; Dogan BE; Grobmyer SR; Katzen J; Kist KA; Makariou EV; Parris TM; Young CA; Butler R
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Sep; 211(3):689-700. PubMed ID: 29975115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Prospective assessment of adjunctive ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography in women undergoing breast biopsy: Impact on BI-RADS assessments.
Poplack SP; Young CA; Hagemann IS; Luo J; Herman CR; Wiele K; Li S; Zeng Y; Covington MF; Zhu Q
Eur J Radiol; 2021 Dec; 145():110029. PubMed ID: 34801874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms.
Lehman C; Holt S; Peacock S; White E; Urban N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jul; 179(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 12076896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
