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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10789773)

  • 1. Accuracy of screening mammography using single versus independent double interpretation.
    Taplin SH; Rutter CM; Elmore JG; Seger D; White D; Brenner RJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 May; 174(5):1257-62. PubMed ID: 10789773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
    Jackson SL; Taplin SH; Sickles EA; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Carney PA; Geller B; Berns EA; Cutter GR; Elmore JG
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jun; 101(11):814-27. PubMed ID: 19470953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.
    Kim SH; Lee EH; Jun JK; Kim YM; Chang YW; Lee JH; Kim HW; Choi EJ;
    Korean J Radiol; 2019 Feb; 20(2):218-224. PubMed ID: 30672161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.
    Taplin S; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Fenton JJ; Berns EA; Carney PA; Cutter GR; Sickles EA; Carl D; Elmore JG
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Jun; 100(12):876-87. PubMed ID: 18544742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Adding in vivo quantitative 1H MR spectroscopy to improve diagnostic accuracy of breast MR imaging: preliminary results of observer performance study at 4.0 T.
    Meisamy S; Bolan PJ; Baker EH; Pollema MG; Le CT; Kelcz F; Lechner MC; Luikens BA; Carlson RA; Brandt KR; Amrami KK; Nelson MT; Everson LI; Emory TH; Tuttle TM; Yee D; Garwood M
    Radiology; 2005 Aug; 236(2):465-75. PubMed ID: 16040903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Potential of computer-aided diagnosis to reduce variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms depicting microcalcifications.
    Jiang Y; Nishikawa RM; Schmidt RA; Toledano AY; Doi K
    Radiology; 2001 Sep; 220(3):787-94. PubMed ID: 11526283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.
    Beam CA; Layde PM; Sullivan DC
    Arch Intern Med; 1996 Jan; 156(2):209-13. PubMed ID: 8546556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An observer study for a computer-aided reading protocol (CARP) in the screening environment for digital mammography.
    Moin P; Deshpande R; Sayre J; Messer E; Gupte S; Romsdahl H; Hasegawa A; Liu BJ
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Nov; 18(11):1420-9. PubMed ID: 21971259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.
    Elmore JG; Wells CK; Lee CH; Howard DH; Feinstein AR
    N Engl J Med; 1994 Dec; 331(22):1493-9. PubMed ID: 7969300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.
    Torres-Mejía G; Smith RA; Carranza-Flores Mde L; Bogart A; Martínez-Matsushita L; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Ortega-Olvera C; Montemayor-Varela E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Bautista-Arredondo S; Sánchez-González G; Martínez-Montañez OG; Uscanga-Sánchez SR; Lazcano-Ponce E; Hernández-Ávila M
    BMC Cancer; 2015 May; 15():410. PubMed ID: 25975383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography.
    Woodard DB; Gelfand AE; Barlow WE; Elmore JG
    Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(7):1532-51. PubMed ID: 16847870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.
    Barlow WE; Chi C; Carney PA; Taplin SH; D'Orsi C; Cutter G; Hendrick RE; Elmore JG
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Dec; 96(24):1840-50. PubMed ID: 15601640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
    Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Breast cancer: effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis observer study with independent database of mammograms.
    Huo Z; Giger ML; Vyborny CJ; Metz CE
    Radiology; 2002 Aug; 224(2):560-8. PubMed ID: 12147857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The influence of knowledge of mammography findings on the accuracy of breast ultrasound in symptomatic women.
    Houssami N; Irwig L; Simpson JM; McKessar M; Blome S; Noakes J
    Breast J; 2005; 11(3):167-72. PubMed ID: 15871700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interreader scoring variability in an observer study using dual-modality imaging for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts.
    Drukker K; Horsch KJ; Pesce LL; Giger ML
    Acad Radiol; 2013 Jul; 20(7):847-53. PubMed ID: 23601952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.
    Esserman L; Cowley H; Eberle C; Kirkpatrick A; Chang S; Berbaum K; Gale A
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Mar; 94(5):369-75. PubMed ID: 11880475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The influence of clinical information on the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.
    Houssami N; Irwig L; Simpson JM; McKessar M; Blome S; Noakes J
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2004 Jun; 85(3):223-8. PubMed ID: 15111760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Computer-aided diagnosis with temporal analysis to improve radiologists' interpretation of mammographic mass lesions.
    Timp S; Varela C; Karssemeijer N
    IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2010 May; 14(3):803-8. PubMed ID: 20403792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Estimating screening-mammography receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from stratified random samples of screening mammograms: a simulation study.
    Zur RM; Pesce LL; Jiang Y
    Acad Radiol; 2015 May; 22(5):580-90. PubMed ID: 25680522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.