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 *

410 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18227537)

  • 1. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.
    Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Baum JK; Acharyya S; Cormack JB; Hanna LA; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Jong RA; Rebner M; Tosteson AN; Gatsonis CA;
    Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):376-83. PubMed ID: 18227537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study.
    Hendrick RE; Cole EB; Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Marques H; Cohen MA; Jong RA; Mawdsley GE; Kanal KM; D'Orsi CJ; Rebner M; Gatsonis C
    Radiology; 2008 Apr; 247(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 18372463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.
    Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Cole EB; Marques HS; Yaffe MJ; Blevins M; Conant EF; Hendrick RE; Baum JK; Fajardo LL; Jong RA; Koomen MA; Kuzmiak CM; Lee Y; Pavic D; Yoon SC; Padungchaichote W; Gatsonis C
    Radiology; 2009 Aug; 252(2):348-57. PubMed ID: 19703878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
    Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
    Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability?
    Kopans DB; Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; Baum JK; Gatsonis CA
    Radiology; 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703. PubMed ID: 18641262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population.
    Seo BK; Pisano ED; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen M; Pavic D; McLelland R; Lee Y; Cole EB; Mattingly D; Lee J
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Oct; 13(10):1229-35. PubMed ID: 16979072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST.
    Hixson GL; Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Yaffe MJ; Gatsonis CA
    Radiology; 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3. PubMed ID: 18641261
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.
    Harvey JA; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BA; Onega TL;
    Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):752-8. PubMed ID: 23249570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.
    Kerlikowske K; Hubbard RA; Miglioretti DL; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Lehman CD; Taplin SH; Sickles EA;
    Ann Intern Med; 2011 Oct; 155(8):493-502. PubMed ID: 22007043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.
    Nishikawa RM; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Marques HS; D'Orsi CJ; Farria DM; Kanal KM; Mahoney MC; Rebner M; Staiger MJ;
    Radiology; 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 19332845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.
    Tosteson AN; Stout NK; Fryback DG; Acharyya S; Herman BA; Hannah LG; Pisano ED;
    Ann Intern Med; 2008 Jan; 148(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 18166758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Status of mammography after the Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial: digital versus film.
    Dershaw DD
    Breast J; 2006; 12(2):99-102. PubMed ID: 16509833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology.
    Pisano ED; Gatsonis CA; Yaffe MJ; Hendrick RE; Tosteson AN; Fryback DG; Bassett LW; Baum JK; Conant EF; Jong RA; Rebner M; D'Orsi CJ
    Radiology; 2005 Aug; 236(2):404-12. PubMed ID: 15961755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.
    Pisano ED; Gatsonis C; Hendrick E; Yaffe M; Baum JK; Acharyya S; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett L; D'Orsi C; Jong R; Rebner M;
    N Engl J Med; 2005 Oct; 353(17):1773-83. PubMed ID: 16169887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Michell MJ; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Evans DR; Peacock C; Lawinski CP; Douiri A; Wilson R; Whelehan P
    Clin Radiol; 2012 Oct; 67(10):976-81. PubMed ID: 22625656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.
    Vinnicombe S; Pinto Pereira SM; McCormack VA; Shiel S; Perry N; Dos Santos Silva IM
    Radiology; 2009 May; 251(2):347-58. PubMed ID: 19401569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.
    Del Turco MR; Mantellini P; Ciatto S; Bonardi R; Martinelli F; Lazzari B; Houssami N
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Oct; 189(4):860-6. PubMed ID: 17885057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.
    Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT
    Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):104-13. PubMed ID: 23169790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
    Cole EB; Zhang Z; Marques HS; Nishikawa RM; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Padungchaichote W; Kuzmiak C; Chayakulkheeree J; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Baum J; Gatsonis C; Pisano E
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Sep; 199(3):W392-401. PubMed ID: 22915432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.
    Sala M; Comas M; Macià F; Martinez J; Casamitjana M; Castells X
    Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 19420316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.