255 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18975686)
1. Binary and multi-category ratings in a laboratory observer performance study: a comparison.
Gur D; Bandos AI; King JL; Klym AH; Cohen CS; Hakim CM; Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Perrin RL; Poller WR; Shah R; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Rockette HE
Med Phys; 2008 Oct; 35(10):4404-9. PubMed ID: 18975686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Is an ROC-type response truly always better than a binary response in observer performance studies?
Gur D; Bandos AI; Rockette HE; Zuley ML; Hakim CM; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Sumkin JH
Acad Radiol; 2010 May; 17(5):639-45. PubMed ID: 20236840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.
Gur D; Abrams GS; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Perrin RL; Rathfon GY; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Bandos AI
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):586-91. PubMed ID: 19620460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Quasi-continuous and discrete confidence rating scales for observer performance studies: Effects on ROC analysis.
Hadjiiski L; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA
Acad Radiol; 2007 Jan; 14(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 17178364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Agreement of the order of overall performance levels under different reading paradigms.
Gur D; Bandos AI; Klym AH; Cohen CS; Hakim CM; Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Perrin RL; Poller WR; Shah R; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Rockette HE
Acad Radiol; 2008 Dec; 15(12):1567-73. PubMed ID: 19000873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computer-aided detection of masses at mammography: interactive decision support versus prompts.
Hupse R; Samulski M; Lobbes MB; Mann RM; Mus R; den Heeten GJ; Beijerinck D; Pijnappel RM; Boetes C; Karssemeijer N
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 23091171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparative statistical properties of expected utility and area under the ROC curve for laboratory studies of observer performance in screening mammography.
Abbey CK; Gallas BD; Boone JM; Niklason LT; Hadjiiski LM; Sahiner B; Samuelson FW
Acad Radiol; 2014 Apr; 21(4):481-90. PubMed ID: 24594418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Investigation of optimal use of computer-aided detection systems: the role of the "machine" in decision making process.
Paquerault S; Hardy PT; Wersto N; Chen J; Smith RC
Acad Radiol; 2010 Sep; 17(9):1112-21. PubMed ID: 20605489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Implications of unchanged detection criteria with CAD as second reader of mammograms.
Bornefalk H
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):922-9. PubMed ID: 16696467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of two data analyses from two observer performance studies using Jackknife ROC and JAFROC.
Zheng B; Chakraborty DP; Rockette HE; Maitz GS; Gur D
Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1031-4. PubMed ID: 15895587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography: a detailed comparison of computer-aided detection-assisted single reading and double reading.
Cawson JN; Nickson C; Amos A; Hill G; Whan AB; Kavanagh AM
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Oct; 53(5):442-9. PubMed ID: 19788479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography.
Georgian-Smith D; Moore RH; Halpern E; Yeh ED; Rafferty EA; D'Alessandro HA; Staffa M; Hall DA; McCarthy KA; Kopans DB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Nov; 189(5):1135-41. PubMed ID: 17954651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software.
Paquerault S; Samuelson FW; Petrick N; Myers KJ; Smith RC
Acad Radiol; 2009 Sep; 16(9):1095-107. PubMed ID: 19523855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Decrease in interpretation time for both novice and experienced readers using a concurrent computer-aided detection system for digital breast tomosynthesis.
Chae EY; Kim HH; Jeong JW; Chae SH; Lee S; Choi YW
Eur Radiol; 2019 May; 29(5):2518-2525. PubMed ID: 30547203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.
Gur D; Bandos AI; Cohen CS; Hakim CM; Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Perrin RL; Poller WR; Shah R; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Rockette HE
Radiology; 2008 Oct; 249(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 18682584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. An observer study for a computer-aided reading protocol (CARP) in the screening environment for digital mammography.
Moin P; Deshpande R; Sayre J; Messer E; Gupte S; Romsdahl H; Hasegawa A; Liu BJ
Acad Radiol; 2011 Nov; 18(11):1420-9. PubMed ID: 21971259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast density (BD) assessment with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): Agreement between Quantra™ and 5th edition BI-RADS
Ekpo EU; Mello-Thoms C; Rickard M; Brennan PC; McEntee MF
Breast; 2016 Dec; 30():185-190. PubMed ID: 27769015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
