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 *

260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18544742)

  • 21. Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.
    Hubbard RA; Zhu W; Horblyuk R; Karliner L; Sprague BL; Henderson L; Lee D; Onega T; Buist DS; Sweet A
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2013 Apr; 138(3):879-87. PubMed ID: 23471650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.
    Goldman LE; Walker R; Miglioretti DL; Smith-Bindman R; Kerlikowske AK;
    Med Care; 2012 Mar; 50(3):210-6. PubMed ID: 22186768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Diagnostic Mammography Performance across Racial and Ethnic Groups in a National Network of Community-Based Breast Imaging Facilities.
    Nyante SJ; Abraham L; Aiello Bowles EJ; Lee CI; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL; Sprague BL; Henderson LM;
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2022 Jul; 31(7):1324-1333. PubMed ID: 35712862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.
    Fenton JJ; Taplin SH; Carney PA; Abraham L; Sickles EA; D'Orsi C; Berns EA; Cutter G; Hendrick RE; Barlow WE; Elmore JG
    N Engl J Med; 2007 Apr; 356(14):1399-409. PubMed ID: 17409321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Facility Mammography Volume in Relation to Breast Cancer Screening Outcomes.
    Onega T; Goldman LE; Walker RL; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Taplin S; Geller BM; Hill DA; Smith-Bindman R
    J Med Screen; 2016 Mar; 23(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 26265482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Audit feedback on reading performance of screening mammograms: An international comparison.
    Hofvind S; Bennett RL; Brisson J; Lee W; Pelletier E; Flugelman A; Geller B
    J Med Screen; 2016 Sep; 23(3):150-9. PubMed ID: 26892191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
    Henderson LM; Benefield T; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Durham DD; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM
    Acad Radiol; 2015 Mar; 22(3):278-89. PubMed ID: 25435185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Performance of diagnostic mammography differs in the United States and Denmark.
    Jensen A; Geller BM; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Rosenberg RD; Vejborg I; Lynge E
    Int J Cancer; 2010 Oct; 127(8):1905-12. PubMed ID: 20104518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?
    Jackson SL; Cook AJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Brenner RJ; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Mar; 19(3):289-95. PubMed ID: 22130089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.
    Torres-Mejía G; Smith RA; Carranza-Flores Mde L; Bogart A; Martínez-Matsushita L; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Ortega-Olvera C; Montemayor-Varela E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Bautista-Arredondo S; Sánchez-González G; Martínez-Montañez OG; Uscanga-Sánchez SR; Lazcano-Ponce E; Hernández-Ávila M
    BMC Cancer; 2015 May; 15():410. PubMed ID: 25975383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
    Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome.
    Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; van Ineveld BM; Roumen RM; de Koning HJ
    Eur J Cancer; 2008 Jun; 44(9):1223-8. PubMed ID: 18400488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods.
    Hendrick RE; Cutter GR; Berns EA; Nakano C; Egger J; Carney PA; Abraham L; Taplin SH; D'Orsi CJ; Barlow W; Elmore JG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Feb; 184(2):433-8. PubMed ID: 15671359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Reality check: perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers.
    Fenton JJ; Egger J; Carney PA; Cutter G; D'Orsi C; Sickles EA; Fosse J; Abraham L; Taplin SH; Barlow W; Hendrick RE; Elmore JG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 16794153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
    Yasmeen S; Romano PS; Pettinger M; Chlebowski RT; Robbins JA; Lane DS; Hendrix SL
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Mar; 95(6):429-36. PubMed ID: 12644536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.