The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess the positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories described in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for lesions on which biopsies have been performed. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 492 impalpable mammographically detected lesions on which surgical biopsy (as opposed to percutaneous biopsy) was performed. Each lesion was classified according to BI-RADS descriptors for masses (margins and shape) and calcifications (morphology and distribution) and was categorized by the BI-RADS final assessment categories as category 3 ("probably benign"), category 4 ("suspicious abnormality"), or category 5 ("highly suggestive of malignancy"). Mammographic and pathologic findings were reviewed. RESULTS: Carcinoma was present in 225 (46%) of 492 lesions. For the 492 lesions subject to biopsy, BI-RADS final assessment categories were category 3 in eight lesions (2%), category 4 in 355 (72%), and category 5 in 129 (26%). The features with highest positive predictive value for carcinoma were spiculated margins (81%), irregular shape (73%), linear calcification morphology (81%), and segmental or linear calcification distribution (74% and 68%, respectively). Carcinoma was present in 105 (81%) of 129 category 5 lesions compared with 120 (34%) of 355 category 4 lesions (p < .001). The frequency of carcinoma was higher in category 5 than in category 4 lesions for all mammographic lesion types and all interpreting radiologists. CONCLUSION: The standardized terminology of the BI-RADS lexicon allows quantification of the likelihood of carcinoma in an impalpable breast lesion. The features with highest positive predictive value--spiculated margins, irregular shape, linear morphology, and segmental or linear distribution--warrant designation of a lesion as category 5.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Wong, T. T. W., Zhang, R., Hai, P., Zhang, C., Pleitez, M. A., Aft, R. L., Novack, D. V., & Wang, L. V. (2017) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602168 · Cited by 285
Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms
Poon, E. G., Haas, J. S., Puopolo, A. L., Gandhi, T. K., Burdick, E., Bates, D. W., & Brennan, T. A. (2004) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30357.x · Cited by 138
A Speech-to-Text Interface for MammoClass
Rocha, R. S., Ferreira, P., Dutra, I., Correia, R., Salvini, R., & Burnside, E. (2016) · 2016 IEEE 29th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) · doi:10.1109/cbms.2016.25 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Liberman, L., Abramson, A. F., Squires, F. B., Glassman, J. R., Morris, E. A., & Dershaw, D. D.
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 1998-07
- Volume
- 171
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-40
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W1973004175
- Cited by
- 460
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648759
- The paper
- Liberman, L., Abramson, A. F., Squires, F. B., Glassman, J. R., Morris, E. A., & Dershaw, D. D. (1998). The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648759
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.