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 *

62 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22095795)

  • 1. Enriched designs for assessing discriminatory performance--analysis of bias and variance.
    Pinsky PF; Gallas B
    Stat Med; 2012 Mar; 31(6):501-15. PubMed ID: 22095795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Estimating screening-mammography receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from stratified random samples of screening mammograms: a simulation study.
    Zur RM; Pesce LL; Jiang Y
    Acad Radiol; 2015 May; 22(5):580-90. PubMed ID: 25680522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography.
    Glueck DH; Lamb MM; Lewin JM; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 2007 Jun; 14(6):670-6. PubMed ID: 17502256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
    Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
    Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Results of a survey on digital screening mammography: prevalence, efficiency, and use of ancillary diagnostic AIDS.
    Haygood TM; Whitman GJ; Atkinson EN; Nikolova RG; Sandoval SY; Dempsey PJ
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2008 Apr; 5(4):585-92. PubMed ID: 18359447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Michell MJ; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Evans DR; Peacock C; Lawinski CP; Douiri A; Wilson R; Whelehan P
    Clin Radiol; 2012 Oct; 67(10):976-81. PubMed ID: 22625656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.
    Cole E; Pisano ED; Brown M; Kuzmiak C; Braeuning MP; Kim HH; Jong R; Walsh R
    Acad Radiol; 2004 Aug; 11(8):879-86. PubMed ID: 15288038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
    Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
    J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.
    Pisano ED; Gatsonis C; Hendrick E; Yaffe M; Baum JK; Acharyya S; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett L; D'Orsi C; Jong R; Rebner M;
    N Engl J Med; 2005 Oct; 353(17):1773-83. PubMed ID: 16169887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population.
    Seo BK; Pisano ED; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen M; Pavic D; McLelland R; Lee Y; Cole EB; Mattingly D; Lee J
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Oct; 13(10):1229-35. PubMed ID: 16979072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study.
    Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Feb; 202(2):273-81. PubMed ID: 24450665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.
    Yang WT; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Murphy WA; Dryden MJ; Kushwaha AC; Sahin AA; Johnston D; Dempsey PJ; Shaw CC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):W576-81. PubMed ID: 17114508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification.
    Alonzo TA; Brinton JT; Ringham BM; Glueck DH
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(15):1852-64. PubMed ID: 21495059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Efficiency of EPI cluster sampling for assessing diarrhoea and dysentery prevalence.
    Yoon SS; Katz J; Brendel K; West KP
    Bull World Health Organ; 1997; 75(5):417-26. PubMed ID: 9447775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An observer study for a computer-aided reading protocol (CARP) in the screening environment for digital mammography.
    Moin P; Deshpande R; Sayre J; Messer E; Gupte S; Romsdahl H; Hasegawa A; Liu BJ
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Nov; 18(11):1420-9. PubMed ID: 21971259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Robust variance estimation for the case-cohort design.
    Barlow WE
    Biometrics; 1994 Dec; 50(4):1064-72. PubMed ID: 7786988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.
    Kim HH; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Jiroutek MR; Muller KE; Zheng Y; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 16794154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value.
    Bonardi R; Ambrogetti D; Ciatto S; Gentile E; Lazzari B; Mantellini P; Nannelli E; Ristori E; Sottani L; Turco MR
    Eur J Radiol; 2005 Aug; 55(2):258-63. PubMed ID: 16036157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Looking back at prospective studies.
    Rutter CM
    Acad Radiol; 2008 Nov; 15(11):1463-6. PubMed ID: 18995197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.