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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2085557)

  • 21. Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging systems.
    Metz CE
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Jun; 3(6):413-22. PubMed ID: 17412096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Perceptual skill, radiology expertise, and visual test performance with NINA and WALDO.
    Nodine CF; Krupinski EA
    Acad Radiol; 1998 Sep; 5(9):603-12. PubMed ID: 9750889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Interpretation of Emergency Department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display.
    Eng J; Mysko WK; Weller GE; Renard R; Gitlin JN; Bluemke DA; Magid D; Kelen GD; Scott WW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Nov; 175(5):1233-8. PubMed ID: 11044013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. On the comparison of FROC curves in mammography CAD systems.
    Bornefalk H; Hermansson AB
    Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):412-7. PubMed ID: 15789587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Improved detection of subtle lung nodules by use of chest radiographs with bone suppression imaging: receiver operating characteristic analysis with and without localization.
    Li F; Hara T; Shiraishi J; Engelmann R; MacMahon H; Doi K
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 May; 196(5):W535-41. PubMed ID: 21512042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Receiver operating characteristics of perceptrons: influence of sample size and prevalence.
    Freking A; Biehl M; Braun C; Kinzel W; Meesmann M
    Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Topics; 1999 Nov; 60(5 Pt B):5926-31. PubMed ID: 11970494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A new parametric method based on S-distributions for computing receiver operating characteristic curves for continuous diagnostic tests.
    Sorribas A; March J; Trujillano J
    Stat Med; 2002 May; 21(9):1213-35. PubMed ID: 12111875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Statistical comparison of ROC curves from multiple readers.
    Swaving M; van Houwelingen H; Ottes FP; Steerneman T
    Med Decis Making; 1996; 16(2):143-52. PubMed ID: 8778532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. RADIUS--closing the circle on the assessment of imaging performance.
    Moores BM; Mattsson S; Månsson LG; Panzer W; Regulla D; Dance D; Alm Carlsson G; Verdun FR; Buhr E; Hoeschen C
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):450-7. PubMed ID: 15933154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Multiple classification and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
    Steinbach WR; Richter K
    Med Decis Making; 1987; 7(4):234-7. PubMed ID: 3683110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [The application of medical decision making to the mass screening: the basic principles on ROC analysis].
    Tsji I
    Rinsho Byori; 1990 May; 38(5):597-600. PubMed ID: 2199711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Diagnostic performance of a prototype dual-energy chest imaging system ROC analysis.
    Kashani H; Varon CA; Paul NS; Gang GJ; Van Metter R; Yorkston J; Siewerdsen JH
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Mar; 17(3):298-308. PubMed ID: 20042351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. ROC and contrast detail image evaluation tests compared.
    Kelsey CA; Moseley RD; Garcia JF; Mettler FA; Parker TW; Juhl JH
    Radiology; 1985 Mar; 154(3):629-31. PubMed ID: 3969463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Computerized analysis of digital subtraction angiography: a tool for quantitative in-vivo vascular imaging.
    Kagadis GC; Spyridonos P; Karnabatidis D; Diamantopoulos A; Athanasiadis E; Daskalakis A; Katsanos K; Cavouras D; Mihailidis D; Siablis D; Nikiforidis GC
    J Digit Imaging; 2008 Dec; 21(4):433-45. PubMed ID: 17674102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Regression models for convex ROC curves.
    Lloyd CJ
    Biometrics; 2000 Sep; 56(3):862-7. PubMed ID: 10985227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.