87 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20457419)
21. Observer variability in the interpretation of HER2/neu immunohistochemical expression with unaided and computer-aided digital microscopy.
Gavrielides MA; Gallas BD; Lenz P; Badano A; Hewitt SM
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2011 Feb; 135(2):233-42. PubMed ID: 21284444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Spatial localization accuracy of radiologists in free-response studies: Inferring perceptual FROC curves from mark-rating data.
Chakraborty D; Yoon HJ; Mello-Thoms C
Acad Radiol; 2007 Jan; 14(1):4-18. PubMed ID: 17178361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies.
Obuchowski NA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Sep; 175(3):603-8. PubMed ID: 10954438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Reduction of bias and variance for evaluation of computer-aided diagnostic schemes.
Li Q; Doi K
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):868-75. PubMed ID: 16696462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Approaching expert results using a hierarchical cerebellum parcellation protocol for multiple inexpert human raters.
Bogovic JA; Jedynak B; Rigg R; Du A; Landman BA; Prince JL; Ying SH
Neuroimage; 2013 Jan; 64():616-29. PubMed ID: 22975160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. ROCView: prototype software for data collection in jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Thompson J; Hogg P; Thompson S; Manning D; Szczepura K
Br J Radiol; 2012 Sep; 85(1017):1320-6. PubMed ID: 22573294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A systematic review of computer-assisted diagnosis in diagnostic cancer imaging.
Eadie LH; Taylor P; Gibson AP
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Jan; 81(1):e70-6. PubMed ID: 21345631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Influence of study design in receiver operating characteristics studies: sequential versus independent reading.
Schalekamp S; van Ginneken B; Schaefer-Prokop CM; Karssemeijer N
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2014 Apr; 1(1):015501. PubMed ID: 26158028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Feasibility Study of a Generalized Framework for Developing Computer-Aided Detection Systems-a New Paradigm.
Nemoto M; Hayashi N; Hanaoka S; Nomura Y; Miki S; Yoshikawa T
J Digit Imaging; 2017 Oct; 30(5):629-639. PubMed ID: 28405834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Is there a safety-net effect with computer-aided detection?
Du-Crow E; Astley SM; Hulleman J
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2020 Mar; 7(2):022405. PubMed ID: 31903408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Development and validation of a semiautomatic image analysis system for measuring skin desquamation with D-Squames.
Wilhelm KP; Kaspar K; Schumann F; Articus K
Skin Res Technol; 2002 May; 8(2):98-105. PubMed ID: 12060474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Multipoint rank-order study methodology: observer issues.
Towers JD; Holbert JM; Britton CA; Costello P; Sciulli R; Gur D
Invest Radiol; 2000 Feb; 35(2):125-30. PubMed ID: 10674457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Statistical approaches for modeling radiologists' interpretive performance.
Miglioretti DL; Haneuse SJ; Anderson ML
Acad Radiol; 2009 Feb; 16(2):227-38. PubMed ID: 19124109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Observer performance in estimating upper arm elevation angles under ideal viewing conditions when assisted by posture matching software.
Jackson JA; Mathiassen SE; Liv P
Appl Ergon; 2016 Jul; 55():208-215. PubMed ID: 26995050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Interpretive Error in Radiology.
Waite S; Scott J; Gale B; Fuchs T; Kolla S; Reede D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Apr; 208(4):739-749. PubMed ID: 28026210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Observer variation and accuracy in the clinical diagnosis of ascites].
Frisch T; Simonsen L; Hilden J
Ugeskr Laeger; 1991 Jun; 153(26):1864-8. PubMed ID: 1862570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Discovering intrinsic properties of human observers' visual search and mathematical observers' scanning.
He X; Samuelson F; Zeng R; Sahiner B
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis; 2014 Nov; 31(11):2495-510. PubMed ID: 25401363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: Changing the confidence ratings.
Gur D; Bandos AI; Fuhrman CR; Klym AH; King JL; Rockette HE
Acad Radiol; 2007 Jan; 14(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 17178365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Are you reading what we are reading? The effect of who interprets medical images on estimates of diagnostic test accuracy in systematic reviews.
Brealey S; Westwood M
Br J Radiol; 2007 Aug; 80(956):674-7. PubMed ID: 17762057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Toward standardized premarket evaluation of computer aided diagnosis/detection products: insights from FDA-approved products.
Wang L; Wang H; Xia C; Wang Y; Tang Q; Li J; Zhou XH
Expert Rev Med Devices; 2020 Sep; 17(9):899-918. PubMed ID: 32842797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
