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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21251856)

  • 1. Using a tailored web-based intervention to set goals to reduce unnecessary recall.
    Carney PA; Bowles EJ; Sickles EA; Geller BM; Feig SA; Jackson S; Brown D; Cook A; Yankaskas BC; Miglioretti DL; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Apr; 18(4):495-503. PubMed ID: 21251856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.
    Carney PA; Abraham L; Cook A; Feig SA; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Sep; 19(9):1114-20. PubMed ID: 22727623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up.
    Carney PA; Geller BM; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Aiello Bowles EJ; Abraham L; Feig SA; Brown D; Cook AJ; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Mar; 18(3):369-76. PubMed ID: 21193335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Educational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized controlled trial.
    Geller BM; Bogart A; Carney PA; Sickles EA; Smith R; Monsees B; Bassett LW; Buist DM; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Yankaskas BC; Haneuse S; Hill D; Wallis MG; Miglioretti D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jun; 202(6):W586-96. PubMed ID: 24848854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessment of Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.
    Sprague BL; Coley RY; Kerlikowske K; Rauscher GH; Henderson LM; Onega T; Lee CI; Herschorn SD; Tosteson ANA; Miglioretti DL
    JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Mar; 3(3):e201759. PubMed ID: 32227180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Radiologists’ Performance at Reduced Recall Rates in Mammography: A Laboratory Study.
    Mohd Norsuddin N; Mello-Thoms C; Reed W; Lewis S
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2019 Feb; 20(2):537-543. PubMed ID: 30803217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Predictors of radiologists' perceived risk of malpractice lawsuits in breast imaging.
    Dick JF; Gallagher TH; Brenner RJ; Yi JP; Reisch LM; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Cutter GR; Elmore JG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Feb; 192(2):327-33. PubMed ID: 19155390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Patient, Radiologist, and Examination Characteristics Affecting Screening Mammography Recall Rates in a Large Academic Practice.
    Giess CS; Wang A; Ip IK; Lacson R; Pourjabbar S; Khorasani R
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2019 Apr; 16(4 Pt A):411-418. PubMed ID: 30037704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Radiologist Agreement for Mammographic Recall by Case Difficulty and Finding Type.
    Onega T; Smith M; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Rosenberg RD; Smith RA; Sickles EA; Haneuse S; Anderson ML; Yankaskas B
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Nov; 13(11S):e72-e79. PubMed ID: 27814827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Computer-assisted mammography feedback program (CAMFP) an electronic tool for continuing medical education.
    Urban N; Longton GM; Crowe AD; Drucker MJ; Lehman CD; Peacock S; Lowe KA; Zeliadt SB; Gaul MA
    Acad Radiol; 2007 Sep; 14(9):1036-42. PubMed ID: 17707310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Improving radiologist's ability in identifying particular abnormal lesions on mammograms through training test set with immediate feedback.
    Trieu PDY; Lewis SJ; Li T; Ho K; Wong DJ; Tran OTM; Puslednik L; Black D; Brennan PC
    Sci Rep; 2021 May; 11(1):9899. PubMed ID: 33972611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.
    Carney PA; Bogart A; Sickles EA; Smith R; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Miglioretti DL; Rosenberg R; Yankaskas BC; Geller BM
    Acad Radiol; 2013 Nov; 20(11):1389-98. PubMed ID: 24119351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
    Jackson SL; Taplin SH; Sickles EA; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Carney PA; Geller B; Berns EA; Cutter GR; Elmore JG
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jun; 101(11):814-27. PubMed ID: 19470953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?
    Leung JW; Margolin FR; Dee KE; Jacobs RP; Denny SR; Schrumpf JD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Jan; 188(1):236-41. PubMed ID: 17179372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Establishing a gold standard for test sets: variation in interpretive agreement of expert mammographers.
    Onega T; Anderson ML; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Geller B; Bogart A; Smith RA; Sickles EA; Monsees B; Bassett L; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Yankaskas BC
    Acad Radiol; 2013 Jun; 20(6):731-9. PubMed ID: 23664400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.