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 *

189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20832024)

  • 1. Radiologists' perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation.
    Onega T; Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Sickles EA; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Oct; 17(10):1217-26. PubMed ID: 20832024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports.
    Elmore JG; Aiello Bowles EJ; Geller B; Oster NV; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Sickles EA; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Jun; 17(6):752-60. PubMed ID: 20457418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Mammographic features of breast cancers at single reading with computer-aided detection and at double reading in a large multicenter prospective trial of computer-aided detection: CADET II.
    James JJ; Gilbert FJ; Wallis MG; Gillan MG; Astley SM; Boggis CR; Agbaje OF; Brentnall AR; Duffy SW
    Radiology; 2010 Aug; 256(2):379-86. PubMed ID: 20656831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography.
    Warren Burhenne LJ; Wood SA; D'Orsi CJ; Feig SA; Kopans DB; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA; Tabar L; Vyborny CJ; Castellino RA
    Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):554-62. PubMed ID: 10796939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improvement in radiologists' characterization of malignant and benign breast masses on serial mammograms with computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study.
    Hadjiiski L; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Blane C; Paramagul C; Petrick N; Bailey J; Klein K; Foster M; Patterson S; Adler D; Nees A; Shen J
    Radiology; 2004 Oct; 233(1):255-65. PubMed ID: 15317954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
    Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program.
    Bargalló X; Santamaría G; Del Amo M; Arguis P; Ríos J; Grau J; Burrel M; Cores E; Velasco M
    Eur J Radiol; 2014 Nov; 83(11):2019-23. PubMed ID: 25193778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography.
    Elmore JG; Taplin SH; Barlow WE; Cutter GR; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE; Abraham LA; Fosse JS; Carney PA
    Radiology; 2005 Jul; 236(1):37-46. PubMed ID: 15987961
    [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. Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review.
    Azavedo E; Zackrisson S; Mejàre I; Heibert Arnlind M
    BMC Med Imaging; 2012 Jul; 12():22. PubMed ID: 22827803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
    Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
    Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Comparison of standard and double reading and computer-aided detection (CAD) of interval cancers at prior negative screening mammograms: blind review.
    Ciatto S; Rosselli Del Turco M; Burke P; Visioli C; Paci E; Zappa M
    Br J Cancer; 2003 Nov; 89(9):1645-9. PubMed ID: 14583763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Computer-aided diagnosis with temporal analysis to improve radiologists' interpretation of mammographic mass lesions.
    Timp S; Varela C; Karssemeijer N
    IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2010 May; 14(3):803-8. PubMed ID: 20403792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms.
    Gromet M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Apr; 190(4):854-9. PubMed ID: 18356428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Utilization of Computer-Aided Detection for Digital Screening Mammography in the United States, 2008 to 2016.
    Keen JD; Keen JM; Keen JE
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2018 Jan; 15(1 Pt A):44-48. PubMed ID: 28993109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.