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 *

275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20456190)

  • 1. Diagnostic performance of breast technologists in reading mammograms in a clinical patient population.
    van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Flobbe K
    Int J Clin Pract; 2010 Mar; 64(4):442-50. PubMed ID: 20456190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography in a clinical population: performance of radiologist and technologists.
    van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Boetes C; Flobbe K
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2010 Apr; 120(2):499-506. PubMed ID: 19418215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Costs and effects of using specialized breast technologists in prereading mammograms in a clinical patient population.
    van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Flobbe K
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Oct; 25(4):505-13. PubMed ID: 19845980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Medical radiologic technologist review: effects on a population-based breast cancer screening program.
    Tonita JM; Hillis JP; Lim CH
    Radiology; 1999 May; 211(2):529-33. PubMed ID: 10228538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories.
    Martin KE; Helvie MA; Zhou C; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Paramagul C; Blane CE; Klein KA; Sonnad SS; Chan HP
    Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):656-65. PubMed ID: 16857974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms.
    Lehman C; Holt S; Peacock S; White E; Urban N
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jul; 179(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 12076896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Evaluation of the results after using of the BI-RADS categories in 1,777 clinical mammograms].
    Hauth EA; Khan K; Wolfgarten B; Betzler A; Kimmig R; Forsting M
    Radiologe; 2008 Mar; 48(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 17265008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.
    Nicholson BT; LoRusso AP; Smolkin M; Bovbjerg VE; Petroni GR; Harvey JA
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Sep; 13(9):1143-9. PubMed ID: 16935726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice.
    Mendez A; Cabanillas F; Echenique M; Malekshamran K; Perez I; Ramos E
    Cancer; 2004 Feb; 100(4):710-4. PubMed ID: 14770425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Inter-reader Variability in the Use of BI-RADS Descriptors for Suspicious Findings on Diagnostic Mammography: A Multi-institution Study of 10 Academic Radiologists.
    Lee AY; Wisner DJ; Aminololama-Shakeri S; Arasu VA; Feig SA; Hargreaves J; Ojeda-Fournier H; Bassett LW; Wells CJ; De Guzman J; Flowers CI; Campbell JE; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Jan; 24(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 27793579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
    Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
    Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?
    Henderson LM; Benefield T; Bowling JM; Durham DD; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Yankaskas BC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):903-8. PubMed ID: 25794085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Performance of users in tropical areas with the BI-RADS classification of breast lesions for predicting malignancy].
    Gonsu Kamga JE; Moifo B; Sando Z; Guegang Goudjou E; Nko'o Amvene S; Gonsu Fotsin J
    Med Sante Trop; 2013; 23(4):439-44. PubMed ID: 24334372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography.
    Lehman CD; Rutter CM; Eby PR; White E; Buist DS; Taplin SH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Feb; 190(2):511-5. PubMed ID: 18212240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
    Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.