169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21248232)
1. Evaluation of reader variability in the interpretation of follow-up CT scans at lung cancer screening.
Singh S; Pinsky P; Fineberg NS; Gierada DS; Garg K; Sun Y; Nath PH
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):263-70. PubMed ID: 21248232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reader variability in identifying pulmonary nodules on chest radiographs from the national lung screening trial.
Singh SP; Gierada DS; Pinsky P; Sanders C; Fineberg N; Sun Y; Lynch D; Nath H
J Thorac Imaging; 2012 Jul; 27(4):249-54. PubMed ID: 22627615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. National lung screening trial: variability in nodule detection rates in chest CT studies.
Pinsky PF; Gierada DS; Nath PH; Kazerooni E; Amorosa J
Radiology; 2013 Sep; 268(3):865-73. PubMed ID: 23592767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Lung cancer: interobserver agreement on interpretation of pulmonary findings at low-dose CT screening.
Gierada DS; Pilgram TK; Ford M; Fagerstrom RM; Church TR; Nath H; Garg K; Strollo DC
Radiology; 2008 Jan; 246(1):265-72. PubMed ID: 18024436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Computer-aided nodule detection and volumetry to reduce variability between radiologists in the interpretation of lung nodules at low-dose screening computed tomography.
Jeon KN; Goo JM; Lee CH; Lee Y; Choo JY; Lee NK; Shim MS; Lee IS; Kim KG; Gierada DS; Bae KT
Invest Radiol; 2012 Aug; 47(8):457-61. PubMed ID: 22717879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Lung Cancers Manifesting as Part-Solid Nodules in the National Lung Screening Trial.
Yip R; Henschke CI; Xu DM; Li K; Jirapatnakul A; Yankelevitz DF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 May; 208(5):1011-1021. PubMed ID: 28245151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Application of computer-aided diagnosis for Lung-RADS categorization in CT screening for lung cancer: effect on inter-reader agreement.
Park S; Park H; Lee SM; Ahn Y; Kim W; Jung K; Seo JB
Eur Radiol; 2022 Feb; 32(2):1054-1064. PubMed ID: 34331112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Improved Interobserver Agreement on Lung-RADS Classification of Solid Nodules Using Semiautomated CT Volumetry.
Gierada DS; Rydzak CE; Zei M; Rhea L
Radiology; 2020 Dec; 297(3):675-684. PubMed ID: 32930652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the assessment of pulmonary nodule size on CT using film and computer display methods.
Bogot NR; Kazerooni EA; Kelly AM; Quint LE; Desjardins B; Nan B
Acad Radiol; 2005 Aug; 12(8):948-56. PubMed ID: 16087090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Validation of a deep learning computer aided system for CT based lung nodule detection, classification, and growth rate estimation in a routine clinical population.
Murchison JT; Ritchie G; Senyszak D; Nijwening JH; van Veenendaal G; Wakkie J; van Beek EJR
PLoS One; 2022; 17(5):e0266799. PubMed ID: 35511758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Inter-reader variability when applying the 2013 Fleischner guidelines for potential solitary subsolid lung nodules.
Penn A; Ma M; Chou BB; Tseng JR; Phan P
Acta Radiol; 2015 Oct; 56(10):1180-6. PubMed ID: 25293951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Relationship between nodule count and lung cancer probability in baseline CT lung cancer screening: The NELSON study.
Heuvelmans MA; Walter JE; Peters RB; Bock GH; Yousaf-Khan U; Aalst CMV; Groen HJM; Nackaerts K; Ooijen PMV; Koning HJ; Oudkerk M; Vliegenthart R
Lung Cancer; 2017 Nov; 113():45-50. PubMed ID: 29110848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Influence of lung nodule margin on volume- and diameter-based reader variability in CT lung cancer screening.
Han D; Heuvelmans MA; Vliegenthart R; Rook M; Dorrius MD; de Jonge GJ; Walter JE; van Ooijen PMA; de Koning HJ; Oudkerk M
Br J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 91(1090):20170405. PubMed ID: 28972803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. CT screening and follow-up of lung nodules: effects of tube current-time setting and nodule size and density on detectability and of tube current-time setting on apparent size.
Christe A; Torrente JC; Lin M; Yen A; Hallett R; Roychoudhury K; Schmitzberger F; Vock P; Roos J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Sep; 197(3):623-30. PubMed ID: 21862804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of three software systems for semi-automatic volumetry of pulmonary nodules on baseline and follow-up CT examinations.
Zhao YR; van Ooijen PM; Dorrius MD; Heuvelmans M; de Bock GH; Vliegenthart R; Oudkerk M
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):691-8. PubMed ID: 24132766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interobserver variability in Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System categorisation in subsolid nodule-enriched lung cancer screening CTs.
Yoon SH; Kim YJ; Doh K; Kim J; Lee KH; Lee KW; Kim J
Eur Radiol; 2021 Sep; 31(9):7184-7191. PubMed ID: 33733688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Detection of Malignant Pulmonary Nodules in Chest Radiographs.
Yoo H; Kim KH; Singh R; Digumarthy SR; Kalra MK
JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Sep; 3(9):e2017135. PubMed ID: 32970157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Pulmonary perifissural nodules on CT scans: rapid growth is not a predictor of malignancy.
de Hoop B; van Ginneken B; Gietema H; Prokop M
Radiology; 2012 Nov; 265(2):611-6. PubMed ID: 22929331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assisted versus Manual Interpretation of Low-Dose CT Scans for Lung Cancer Screening: Impact on Lung-RADS Agreement.
Jacobs C; Schreuder A; van Riel SJ; Scholten ET; Wittenberg R; Wille MMW; de Hoop B; Sprengers R; Mets OM; Geurts B; Prokop M; Schaefer-Prokop C; van Ginneken B
Radiol Imaging Cancer; 2021 Sep; 3(5):e200160. PubMed ID: 34559005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Pulmonary nodule detection with low-dose CT of the lung: agreement among radiologists.
Leader JK; Warfel TE; Fuhrman CR; Golla SK; Weissfeld JL; Avila RS; Turner WD; Zheng B
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):973-8. PubMed ID: 16177418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
