1996
DOI: 10.1097/00008469-199608000-00008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mammographic signs of potential relevance to breast cancer risk: the agreement of radiologistsʼ classification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other methods used to visually estimate percent density, using six categories of percent density, have previously shown moderate to high inter-(ICCs ranging from 0.68 to 0.89) and intrarater reliabilities (ICCs ranging from 0.73 to 0.96), [38][39][40][41] and high inter-(ICC = 0.94) and intrarater reliabilities (ICC = 0.96) using 21 categories. 42 Consistent with the intrarater reliability estimates we observed for sound speed measures, mammographic breast density assessment using quantitative computer-assisted interactive thresholding methods has also yielded high intrarater reliability (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.82 to 0.94).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other methods used to visually estimate percent density, using six categories of percent density, have previously shown moderate to high inter-(ICCs ranging from 0.68 to 0.89) and intrarater reliabilities (ICCs ranging from 0.73 to 0.96), [38][39][40][41] and high inter-(ICC = 0.94) and intrarater reliabilities (ICC = 0.96) using 21 categories. 42 Consistent with the intrarater reliability estimates we observed for sound speed measures, mammographic breast density assessment using quantitative computer-assisted interactive thresholding methods has also yielded high intrarater reliability (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.82 to 0.94).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study was construed before the widespread use of digital mammograms and did not mandate uniform mammographic technique. As such, a small number of films (25) were either copies of plain films or printed digital films, and 11 cases were mixed, in that subjects did not have mammograms of uniform technique at each time point. This may have led to inaccurate density measurements, or to inaccurate intrasubject comparisons of density, as computer-assisted percent density readings may vary according to mammographic technique.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To confirm eligibility (screening assessment), baseline mammographic density was assessed by a trained physician and scored into one of six categories of density (0%, \10%, 10 to \25%, 25 to \50%, 50 to \75%, and C75%) that have been used in previous work [1,25]. Once enrolled in the study, mammographic percent density, including that of baseline mammogram, was assessed by a computerassisted method with Cumulus 5 software.…”
Section: Assessment Of Mammographic Densitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to confirm eligibility (screening assessment), baseline mammographic density was assessed by a trained physician and scored into one of six categories of density according to the Boyd scale [grade 1 (0%), grade 2 (\10%), grade 3 (10 to \25%), grade 4 (25 to \50%), grade 5 (50 to\75%), and grade 6 (C75%)] that have been used in previous work [3,33]. Once enrolled in the study, mammographic percent density, including that of the baseline mammogram, was assessed by a computer-assisted method.…”
Section: Assessment Of Mammographic Densitymentioning
confidence: 99%