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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21495059)

  • 41. [Performance of record linkage for cancer registry data linked with mammography screening data].
    Giersiepen K; Bachteler T; Gramlich T; Reiher J; Schubert B; Novopashenny I; Schnell R
    Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz; 2010 Jul; 53(7):740-7. PubMed ID: 20652484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Stereotactic and sonographic large-core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: results of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group V study.
    Fajardo LL; Pisano ED; Caudry DJ; Gatsonis CA; Berg WA; Connolly J; Schnitt S; Page DL; McNeil BJ;
    Acad Radiol; 2004 Mar; 11(3):293-308. PubMed ID: 15035520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Accuracy of mammography and clinical breast examination in the implementation of breast cancer screening programs in Colombia.
    Alba LH; Díaz S; Gamboa O; Poveda C; Henao A; Perry F; Duggan C; Gil F; Murillo R
    Prev Med; 2018 Oct; 115():19-25. PubMed ID: 30092313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. A Bayesian approach to simultaneously adjusting for verification and reference standard bias in diagnostic test studies.
    Lu Y; Dendukuri N; Schiller I; Joseph L
    Stat Med; 2010 Oct; 29(24):2532-43. PubMed ID: 20799249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
    J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Comparison of woman-specific versus breast-specific data for reporting screening mammography performance.
    Heinzen MT; Yankaskas BC; Kwok RK
    Acad Radiol; 2000 Apr; 7(4):232-6. PubMed ID: 10766095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer.
    Kerlikowske K; Carney PA; Geller B; Mandelson MT; Taplin SH; Malvin K; Ernster V; Urban N; Cutter G; Rosenberg R; Ballard-Barbash R
    Ann Intern Med; 2000 Dec; 133(11):855-63. PubMed ID: 11103055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Combined screening with mammography and ultrasound in a population-based screening program.
    Buchberger W; Geiger-Gritsch S; Knapp R; Gautsch K; Oberaigner W
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Apr; 101():24-29. PubMed ID: 29571797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. On the estimation of disease prevalence by latent class models for screening studies using two screening tests with categorical disease status verified in test positives only.
    Chu H; Zhou Y; Cole SR; Ibrahim JG
    Stat Med; 2010 May; 29(11):1206-18. PubMed ID: 20191614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Performance of Screening Ultrasonography as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography in Women Across the Spectrum of Breast Cancer Risk.
    Lee JM; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD; Smith RA; Henderson LM; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
    JAMA Intern Med; 2019 May; 179(5):658-667. PubMed ID: 30882843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Combined fine-needle aspiration, physical examination and mammography in the diagnosis of palpable breast masses: their relation to outcome for women with primary breast cancer.
    Steinberg JL; Trudeau ME; Ryder DE; Fishell E; Chapman JA; McCready DR; Fish EB; Hiraki GY; Ross TM; Lickley LA
    Can J Surg; 1996 Aug; 39(4):302-11. PubMed ID: 8697321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Forcing dichotomous disease classification from reference standards leads to bias in diagnostic accuracy estimates: A simulation study.
    Jenniskens K; Naaktgeboren CA; Reitsma JB; Hooft L; Moons KGM; van Smeden M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Jul; 111():1-10. PubMed ID: 30904568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
    Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Compliance With Screening Mammography Guidelines After a False-Positive Mammogram.
    Hardesty LA; Lind KE; Gutierrez EJ
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Sep; 13(9):1032-8. PubMed ID: 27233908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. [Discrepancies and overdiagnosis in breast cancer organized screening. A "methodology" systematic review].
    Gocko X; Leclerq M; Plotton C
    Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique; 2018 Nov; 66(6):395-403. PubMed ID: 30316554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. [Results of a pilot study for breast cancer screening by mammography in Sfax region, Tunisia].
    Frikha M; Yaiche O; Elloumi F; Mnejja W; Slimi L; Kassis M; Daoud J
    J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 2013 May; 42(3):252-61. PubMed ID: 23478043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard.
    Karch A; Koch A; Zapf A; Zerr I; Karch A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Oct; 78():73-82. PubMed ID: 27107877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Benefits of the quality assured double and arbitration reading of mammograms in the early diagnosis of breast cancer in symptomatic women.
    Waldmann A; Kapsimalakou S; Katalinic A; Grande-Nagel I; Stoeckelhuber BM; Fischer D; Barkhausen J; Vogt FM
    Eur Radiol; 2012 May; 22(5):1014-22. PubMed ID: 22095439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Estimation of disease prevalence, true positive rate, and false positive rate of two screening tests when disease verification is applied on only screen-positives: a hierarchical model using multi-center data.
    Stock EM; Stamey JD; Sankaranarayanan R; Young DM; Muwonge R; Arbyn M
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 36(2):153-60. PubMed ID: 21856264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening.
    de Gelder R; Heijnsdijk EA; van Ravesteyn NT; Fracheboud J; Draisma G; de Koning HJ
    Epidemiol Rev; 2011; 33(1):111-21. PubMed ID: 21709144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.