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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23040503)

  • 1. Application of threshold-bias independent analysis to eye-tracking and FROC data.
    Chakraborty DP; Yoon HJ; Mello-Thoms C
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Dec; 19(12):1474-83. PubMed ID: 23040503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. On the meaning of the weighted alternative free-response operating characteristic figure of merit.
    Chakraborty DP; Zhai X
    Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2548. PubMed ID: 27147365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Correlation of free-response and receiver-operating-characteristic area-under-the-curve estimates: results from independently conducted FROC∕ROC studies in mammography.
    Zanca F; Hillis SL; Claus F; Van Ongeval C; Celis V; Provoost V; Yoon HJ; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2012 Oct; 39(10):5917-29. PubMed ID: 23039631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm.
    Gur D; Bandos AI; Rockette HE; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Chough DM; Hakim CM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Mar; 196(3):737-41. PubMed ID: 21343521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Perceptually based FROC analysis.
    Arora R; Kundel HL; Beam CA
    Acad Radiol; 2005 Dec; 12(12):1567-74. PubMed ID: 16321746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Spatial localization accuracy of radiologists in free-response studies: Inferring perceptual FROC curves from mark-rating data.
    Chakraborty D; Yoon HJ; Mello-Thoms C
    Acad Radiol; 2007 Jan; 14(1):4-18. PubMed ID: 17178361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Performance assessment of mammographic diagnostic systems: evolution of methods and their application to a digital image study].
    Compagnone G; Ferruzzi K; Pierotti L; Vianello Vos C; Berardi P; Bergamini C
    Radiol Med; 1999 Mar; 97(3):179-87. PubMed ID: 10363062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quantifying the clinical relevance of a laboratory observer performance paradigm.
    Chakraborty DP; Haygood TM; Ryan J; Marom EM; Evanoff M; McEntee MF; Brennan PC
    Br J Radiol; 2012 Sep; 85(1017):1287-302. PubMed ID: 22573296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Using breast radiographers' reports as a second opinion for radiologists' readings of microcalcifications in digital mammography.
    Tanaka R; Takamori M; Uchiyama Y; Nishikawa RM; Shiraishi J
    Br J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 88(1047):20140565. PubMed ID: 25536443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of lossy JPEG2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees compression of digitized mammograms.
    Penedo M; Souto M; Tahoces PG; Carreira JM; Villalón J; Porto G; Seoane C; Vidal JJ; Berbaum KS; Chakraborty DP; Fajardo LL
    Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):450-7. PubMed ID: 16244253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Operating characteristics predicted by models for diagnostic tasks involving lesion localization.
    Chakraborty DP; Yoon HJ
    Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):435-45. PubMed ID: 18383663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of CAD on radiologists' detection of lung nodules on thoracic CT scans: analysis of an observer performance study by nodule size.
    Sahiner B; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Cascade PN; Kazerooni EA; Chughtai AR; Poopat C; Song T; Frank L; Stojanovska J; Attili A
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Dec; 16(12):1518-30. PubMed ID: 19896069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Measuring agreement between rating interpretations and binary clinical interpretations of images: a simulation study of methods for quantifying the clinical relevance of an observer performance paradigm.
    Chakraborty DP
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 May; 57(10):2873-904. PubMed ID: 22516804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of two data analyses from two observer performance studies using Jackknife ROC and JAFROC.
    Zheng B; Chakraborty DP; Rockette HE; Maitz GS; Gur D
    Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1031-4. PubMed ID: 15895587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment.
    Chakraborty DP; Winter LH
    Radiology; 1990 Mar; 174(3 Pt 1):873-81. PubMed ID: 2305073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Ideal AFROC and FROC observers.
    Khurd P; Liu B; Gindi G
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2010 Feb; 29(2):375-86. PubMed ID: 20129845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Agreement of the order of overall performance levels under different reading paradigms.
    Gur D; Bandos AI; Klym AH; Cohen CS; Hakim CM; Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Perrin RL; Poller WR; Shah R; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Rockette HE
    Acad Radiol; 2008 Dec; 15(12):1567-73. PubMed ID: 19000873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. On the comparison of FROC curves in mammography CAD systems.
    Bornefalk H; Hermansson AB
    Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):412-7. PubMed ID: 15789587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Computer-aided detection of breast masses: four-view strategy for screening mammography.
    Wei J; Chan HP; Zhou C; Wu YT; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Roubidoux MA; Helvie MA
    Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):1867-76. PubMed ID: 21626920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.