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 *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1627374)

  • 1. Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study.
    Ciccone G; Vineis P; Frigerio A; Segnan N
    Eur J Cancer; 1992; 28A(6-7):1054-8. PubMed ID: 1627374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.
    Elmore JG; Miglioretti DL; Reisch LM; Barton MB; Kreuter W; Christiansen CL; Fletcher SW
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Sep; 94(18):1373-80. PubMed ID: 12237283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study.
    Skaane P; Gullien R; Eben EB; Sandhaug M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Stoeblen F
    Acta Radiol; 2015 Apr; 56(4):404-12. PubMed ID: 24682405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Inter- and intra-observer variability of qualitative visual breast-composition assessment in mammography among Japanese physicians: a first multi-institutional observer performance study in Japan.
    Koyama Y; Nakashima K; Orihara S; Tsunoda H; Kimura F; Uenaka N; Ban K; Michishita Y; Kanemaki Y; Kurihara A; Tawaraya K; Taguri M; Ishikawa T; Uematsu T
    Breast Cancer; 2024 Jul; 31(4):671-683. PubMed ID: 38619787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
    Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Frankel SD; Ominsky SH; Sickles EA; Ernster V
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1998 Dec; 90(23):1801-9. PubMed ID: 9839520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The inter-observer variability of breast density scoring between mammography technologists and breast radiologists and its effect on the rate of adjuvant ultrasound.
    Mazor RD; Savir A; Gheorghiu D; Weinstein Y; Abadi-Korek I; Shabshin N
    Eur J Radiol; 2016 May; 85(5):957-62. PubMed ID: 27130056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
    J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Double reading of mammography screening films--one radiologist or two?
    Anttinen I; Pamilo M; Soiva M; Roiha M
    Clin Radiol; 1993 Dec; 48(6):414-21. PubMed ID: 8293648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation.
    Beam CA; Conant EF; Sickles EA
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Feb; 95(4):282-90. PubMed ID: 12591984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Validity and reliability of mammographic interpretation by Mexican radiologists, using the BI-RADS system].
    Torres-Mejía G; Villaseñor-Navarro Y; Yunes-Díaz E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Martínez-Montañez OG; Lazcano-Ponce E
    Rev Invest Clin; 2011; 63(2):124-34. PubMed ID: 21717719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Test for the assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of mammography. Results of 103 tests carried out by Italian radiologists].
    Ciatto S; Rosselli Del Turco M; Ambrogetti D; Catarzi S; Morrone D
    Radiol Med; 1996 Oct; 92(4):367-71. PubMed ID: 9045233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. To asses inter- and intra-observer variability for breast density and BIRADS assessment categories in mammographic reporting.
    Masroor I; Rasool M; Saeed SA; Sohail S
    J Pak Med Assoc; 2016 Feb; 66(2):194-7. PubMed ID: 26819167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. "Memory effect" in observer performance studies of mammograms.
    Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Cohen CS; Clearfield RJ; Gur D
    Acad Radiol; 2005 Mar; 12(3):286-90. PubMed ID: 15766687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Women's features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN).
    Pérez-Gómez B; Ruiz F; Martínez I; Casals M; Miranda J; Sánchez-Contador C; Vidal C; Llobet R; Pollán M; Salas D
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2012 Feb; 132(1):287-95. PubMed ID: 22042363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.
    Rawashdeh MA; Lee WB; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard RC; Black DA; Brennan PC
    Radiology; 2013 Oct; 269(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 23737538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.