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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15987961)

  • 21. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.
    Miglioretti DL; Gard CC; Carney PA; Onega TL; Buist DS; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Geller BM; Elmore JG
    Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):632-40. PubMed ID: 19789234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.
    Carney PA; Abraham L; Cook A; Feig SA; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Sep; 19(9):1114-20. PubMed ID: 22727623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Association between time spent interpreting, level of confidence, and accuracy of screening mammography.
    Carney PA; Bogart TA; Geller BM; Haneuse S; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Smith R; Rosenberg R; Yankaskas BC; Onega T; Miglioretti DL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Apr; 198(4):970-8. PubMed ID: 22451568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms.
    Schaffter T; Buist DSM; Lee CI; Nikulin Y; Ribli D; Guan Y; Lotter W; Jie Z; Du H; Wang S; Feng J; Feng M; Kim HE; Albiol F; Albiol A; Morrell S; Wojna Z; Ahsen ME; Asif U; Jimeno Yepes A; Yohanandan S; Rabinovici-Cohen S; Yi D; Hoff B; Yu T; Chaibub Neto E; Rubin DL; Lindholm P; Margolies LR; McBride RB; Rothstein JH; Sieh W; Ben-Ari R; Harrer S; Trister A; Friend S; Norman T; Sahiner B; Strand F; Guinney J; Stolovitzky G; ; Mackey L; Cahoon J; Shen L; Sohn JH; Trivedi H; Shen Y; Buturovic L; Pereira JC; Cardoso JS; Castro E; Kalleberg KT; Pelka O; Nedjar I; Geras KJ; Nensa F; Goan E; Koitka S; Caballero L; Cox DD; Krishnaswamy P; Pandey G; Friedrich CM; Perrin D; Fookes C; Shi B; Cardoso Negrie G; Kawczynski M; Cho K; Khoo CS; Lo JY; Sorensen AG; Jung H
    JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Mar; 3(3):e200265. PubMed ID: 32119094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.
    Buist DS; Anderson ML; Haneuse SJ; Sickles EA; Smith RA; Carney PA; Taplin SH; Rosenberg RD; Geller BM; Onega TL; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):72-84. PubMed ID: 21343539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Radiologists' perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation.
    Onega T; Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Sickles EA; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Oct; 17(10):1217-26. PubMed ID: 20832024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Patient, Radiologist, and Examination Characteristics Affecting Screening Mammography Recall Rates in a Large Academic Practice.
    Giess CS; Wang A; Ip IK; Lacson R; Pourjabbar S; Khorasani R
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2019 Apr; 16(4 Pt A):411-418. PubMed ID: 30037704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Mammographic interpretation: radiologists' ability to accurately estimate their performance and compare it with that of their peers.
    Cook AJ; Elmore JG; Zhu W; Jackson SL; Carney PA; Flowers C; Onega T; Geller B; Rosenberg RD; Miglioretti DL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Sep; 199(3):695-702. PubMed ID: 22915414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.
    Halladay JR; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM; Alexander C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Sep; 195(3):782-5. PubMed ID: 20729460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Disclosing harmful mammography errors to patients.
    Gallagher TH; Cook AJ; Brenner RJ; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Geller BM; Kerlikowske K; Onega TL; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Lehman CD; Elmore JG
    Radiology; 2009 Nov; 253(2):443-52. PubMed ID: 19710002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment.
    Tan A; Freeman DH; Goodwin JS; Freeman JL
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2006 Dec; 100(3):309-18. PubMed ID: 16819566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography.
    Gur D; Sumkin JH; Hardesty LA; Clearfield RJ; Cohen CS; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Harris KM; Poller WR; Shah R; Wallace LP; Rockette HE
    Cancer; 2004 Apr; 100(8):1590-4. PubMed ID: 15073844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Factors associated with breast screening radiologists' annual mammogram reading volume in Italy.
    Morrone D; Giordano L; Artuso F; Bernardi D; Fedato C; Frigerio A; Giorgi D; Naldoni C; Saguatti G; Severi D; Taffurelli M; Terribile D; Ventura L; Bucchi L
    Radiol Med; 2016 Jul; 121(7):557-63. PubMed ID: 27033475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.
    Smith-Bindman R; Chu P; Miglioretti DL; Quale C; Rosenberg RD; Cutter G; Geller B; Bacchetti P; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 Mar; 97(5):358-67. PubMed ID: 15741572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Recommendation for short-interval follow-up examinations after a probably benign assessment: is clinical practice consistent with BI-RADS guidance?
    Bowles EJ; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Elmore JG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Apr; 194(4):1152-9. PubMed ID: 20308525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Assessment of Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.
    Sprague BL; Coley RY; Kerlikowske K; Rauscher GH; Henderson LM; Onega T; Lee CI; Herschorn SD; Tosteson ANA; Miglioretti DL
    JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Mar; 3(3):e201759. PubMed ID: 32227180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography.
    Carney PA; Kettler M; Cook AJ; Geller BM; Karliner L; Miglioretti DL; Bowles EA; Buist DS; Gallagher TH; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Sep; 16(9):1056-63. PubMed ID: 19442539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.