152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18430832)
1. Accuracy of short-interval follow-up mammograms by patient and radiologist characteristics.
Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Abraham L; Carney PA; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 May; 190(5):1200-8. PubMed ID: 18430832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
Buist DS; Anderson ML; Smith RA; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Monsees BS; Sickles EA; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Onega TL
Radiology; 2014 Nov; 273(2):351-64. PubMed ID: 24960110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.
Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Carney PA; Sickles EA; Elmore JG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Aug; 205(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 26204300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.
Elmore JG; Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Buist DS
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):641-51. PubMed ID: 19864507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Radiologists' performance and their enjoyment of interpreting screening mammograms.
Geller BM; Bowles EJ; Sohng HY; Brenner RJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Elmore JG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Feb; 192(2):361-9. PubMed ID: 19155395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An Artificial Intelligence-based Mammography Screening Protocol for Breast Cancer: Outcome and Radiologist Workload.
Lauritzen AD; Rodríguez-Ruiz A; von Euler-Chelpin MC; Lynge E; Vejborg I; Nielsen M; Karssemeijer N; Lillholm M
Radiology; 2022 Jul; 304(1):41-49. PubMed ID: 35438561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.
Lehman CD; Wellman RD; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Miglioretti DL;
JAMA Intern Med; 2015 Nov; 175(11):1828-37. PubMed ID: 26414882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.
Miglioretti DL; Smith-Bindman R; Abraham L; Brenner RJ; Carney PA; Bowles EJ; Buist DS; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Dec; 99(24):1854-63. PubMed ID: 18073379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effect of artificial intelligence-based triaging of breast cancer screening mammograms on cancer detection and radiologist workload: a retrospective simulation study.
Dembrower K; Wåhlin E; Liu Y; Salim M; Smith K; Lindholm P; Eklund M; Strand F
Lancet Digit Health; 2020 Sep; 2(9):e468-e474. PubMed ID: 33328114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Range of Radiologist Performance in a Population-based Screening Cohort of 1 Million Digital Mammography Examinations.
Salim M; Dembrower K; Eklund M; Lindholm P; Strand F
Radiology; 2020 Oct; 297(1):33-39. PubMed ID: 32720866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.
Ichikawa LE; Barlow WE; Anderson ML; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Brenner RJ;
Radiology; 2010 Jul; 256(1):74-82. PubMed ID: 20505059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms.
Molins E; Macià F; Ferrer F; Maristany MT; Castells X
BMC Health Serv Res; 2008 Apr; 8():91. PubMed ID: 18439248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
