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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16005226)

  • 1. Cancer detection and mammogram volume of radiologists in a population-based screening programme.
    Rickard M; Taylor R; Page A; Estoesta J
    Breast; 2006 Feb; 15(1):39-43. PubMed ID: 16005226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
    Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
    Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.
    Théberge I; Chang SL; Vandal N; Daigle JM; Guertin MH; Pelletier E; Brisson J
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Mar; 106(3):djt461. PubMed ID: 24598715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
    Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.
    Otten JD; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ; Holland R
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(10):748-54. PubMed ID: 15900044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.
    Jiang Y; Miglioretti DL; Metz CE; Schmidt RA
    Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):360-7. PubMed ID: 17456866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A dedicated BI-RADS training programme: effect on the inter-observer variation among screening radiologists.
    Timmers JM; van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ; Verbeek AL; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ
    Eur J Radiol; 2012 Sep; 81(9):2184-8. PubMed ID: 21899969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Moss SM
    J Med Screen; 1998; 5(4):195-201. PubMed ID: 9934650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
    Cornford E; Reed J; Murphy A; Bennett R; Evans A
    Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 21216324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.
    Kan L; Olivotto IA; Warren Burhenne LJ; Sickles EA; Coldman AJ
    Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):563-7. PubMed ID: 10796940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.
    May DS; Lee NC; Nadel MR; Henson RM; Miller DS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):97-104. PubMed ID: 9423608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mammography screening and breast cancer mortality in New South Wales, Australia.
    Taylor R; Morrell S; Estoesta J; Brassil A
    Cancer Causes Control; 2004 Aug; 15(6):543-50. PubMed ID: 15280633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
    Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?
    Leung JW; Margolin FR; Dee KE; Jacobs RP; Denny SR; Schrumpf JD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Jan; 188(1):236-41. PubMed ID: 17179372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias.
    Gordon PB; Borugian MJ; Warren Burhenne LJ
    Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):411-5. PubMed ID: 17848684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Biennial screening mammography: How many women ask for more? Estimate of the interval mammogram rate in an organised population-based screening programme.
    Carbonaro LA; Rizzo SS; Schiaffino S; Pisani Mainini A; Berger N; Trimboli RM; Sardanelli F
    Radiol Med; 2021 Feb; 126(2):200-205. PubMed ID: 32577906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Protocol for evaluating the fitness for purpose of an artificial intelligence product for radiology reporting in the BreastScreen New South Wales breast cancer screening programme.
    Warner-Smith M; Ren K; Mistry C; Walton R; Roder D; Bhola N; McGill S; O'Brien TA
    BMJ Open; 2024 May; 14(5):e082350. PubMed ID: 38806433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; de Haan AF; Wauters CA; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
    Eur J Cancer; 2015 Feb; 51(3):391-9. PubMed ID: 25573788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.