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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21696556)

  • 1. Intrareader variability in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance amongst experienced radiologists in Australia.
    Pitman AG; Tan SY; Ong AH; Gledhill S; Tauro P; Lemish W; Waugh J; Padmanabhan M; Lui B; Hennessy O; Styles C; Pun E
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2011 Jun; 55(3):245-51. PubMed ID: 21696556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of readers' detection of right-sided and left-sided breast cancers and microcalcifications.
    Tan SY; Pitman A; Ong AH; Gledhill S; Pun E; Styles C; Padmanabhan M; Tauro P; Waugh J; Lemish W; Hennessy O; Lui B
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2011 Aug; 55(4):353-61. PubMed ID: 21843169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of 3MP medical-grade to 1MP office-grade LCD monitors in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance.
    Ong AH; Pitman AG; Tan SY; Gledhill S; Hennessy O; Lui B; Lemish W; Tauro P; Styles C; Pun E; Waugh J; Padmanabhan M; Lee A
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2011 Apr; 55(2):153-62. PubMed ID: 21501404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
    Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Why is microcalcification missed on mammography?
    Peters G; Jones CM; Daniels K
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2013 Feb; 57(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 23374551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.
    Elmore JG; Wells CK; Lee CH; Howard DH; Feinstein AR
    N Engl J Med; 1994 Dec; 331(22):1493-9. PubMed ID: 7969300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Analysis of perceived similarity between pairs of microcalcification clusters in mammograms.
    Wang J; Jing H; Wernick MN; Nishikawa RM; Yang Y
    Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051904. PubMed ID: 24784383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores.
    Trieu PDY; Lewis SJ; Li T; Ho K; Tapia KA; Brennan PC
    Br J Radiol; 2020 Oct; 93(1114):20200363. PubMed ID: 32730088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study.
    Skaane P; Gullien R; Eben EB; Sandhaug M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Stoeblen F
    Acta Radiol; 2015 Apr; 56(4):404-12. PubMed ID: 24682405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.
    Rawashdeh MA; Lee WB; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard RC; Black DA; Brennan PC
    Radiology; 2013 Oct; 269(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 23737538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy of mammographic breast density analysis: results of formal operator training.
    Prevrhal S; Shepherd JA; Smith-Bindman R; Cummings SR; Kerlikowske K
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2002 Nov; 11(11):1389-93. PubMed ID: 12433716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Observer Variability in Breast Cancer Diagnosis between Countries with and without Breast Screening.
    Demchig D; Mello-Thoms C; Lee W; Khurelsukh K; Ramish A; Brennan P
    Acad Radiol; 2019 Jan; 26(1):62-68. PubMed ID: 29580792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Radiologist Self-training: a Study of Cancer Detection when Reading Mammograms at Work Clinics or Workshops.
    Lewis SJ; Borecky N; Li T; Barron ML; Brennan P; Trieu PDY
    J Cancer Educ; 2023 Apr; 38(2):571-577. PubMed ID: 35511333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reliability of semiquantitative assessment of osteophytes and subchondral cysts on tomosynthesis images by radiologists with different levels of expertise.
    Hayashi D; Xu L; Gusenburg J; Roemer FW; Hunter DJ; Li L; Guermazi A
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2014; 20(4):353-9. PubMed ID: 24834489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance.
    Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM; Johnson JP; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2007 Oct; 34(10):3971-81. PubMed ID: 17985642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Validity and reliability of mammographic interpretation by Mexican radiologists, using the BI-RADS system].
    Torres-Mejía G; Villaseñor-Navarro Y; Yunes-Díaz E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Martínez-Montañez OG; Lazcano-Ponce E
    Rev Invest Clin; 2011; 63(2):124-34. PubMed ID: 21717719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.