BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24586763)

  • 1. Addressing the challenge of assessing physician-level screening performance: mammography as an example.
    Burnside ES; Lin Y; Munoz del Rio A; Pickhardt PJ; Wu Y; Strigel RM; Elezaby MA; Kerr EA; Miglioretti DL
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(2):e89418. PubMed ID: 24586763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.
    Miglioretti DL; Ichikawa L; Smith RA; Bassett LW; Feig SA; Monsees B; Parikh JR; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Carney PA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):W486-91. PubMed ID: 25794100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study.
    Lee CS; Moy L; Hughes D; Golden D; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Hemingway J; Geras A; Duszak R; Rosenkrantz AB
    Radiology; 2021 Sep; 300(3):518-528. PubMed ID: 34156300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography.
    Carney PA; Sickles EA; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Brenner RJ; Feig SA; Smith RA; Rosenberg RD; Bogart TA; Browning S; Barry JW; Kelly MM; Tran KA; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2010 May; 255(2):354-61. PubMed ID: 20413750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.
    Smith-Bindman R; Chu P; Miglioretti DL; Quale C; Rosenberg RD; Cutter G; Geller B; Bacchetti P; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 Mar; 97(5):358-67. PubMed ID: 15741572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.
    Buist DS; Anderson ML; Haneuse SJ; Sickles EA; Smith RA; Carney PA; Taplin SH; Rosenberg RD; Geller BM; Onega TL; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):72-84. PubMed ID: 21343539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
    Cornford E; Reed J; Murphy A; Bennett R; Evans A
    Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 21216324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.
    Kan L; Olivotto IA; Warren Burhenne LJ; Sickles EA; Coldman AJ
    Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):563-7. PubMed ID: 10796940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data.
    Lee CS; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; Nagy P; Sickles EA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Apr; 206(4):883-90. PubMed ID: 26866649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.
    Théberge I; Chang SL; Vandal N; Daigle JM; Guertin MH; Pelletier E; Brisson J
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Mar; 106(3):djt461. PubMed ID: 24598715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Harmonizing Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations: Metrics and Accountability.
    Lee CS; Moy L; Friedewald SM; Sickles EA; Monticciolo DL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Feb; 210(2):241-245. PubMed ID: 29045178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Simulation Screening Mammography Module Created for Instruction and Assessment: Radiology Residents vs National Benchmarks.
    Poot JD; Chetlen AL
    Acad Radiol; 2016 Nov; 23(11):1454-1462. PubMed ID: 27637285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.
    Kim SH; Lee EH; Jun JK; Kim YM; Chang YW; Lee JH; Kim HW; Choi EJ;
    Korean J Radiol; 2019 Feb; 20(2):218-224. PubMed ID: 30672161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria.
    Carney PA; Parikh J; Sickles EA; Feig SA; Monsees B; Bassett LW; Smith RA; Rosenberg R; Ichikawa L; Wallace J; Tran K; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2013 May; 267(2):359-67. PubMed ID: 23297329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Correlation Between Screening Mammography Interpretive Performance on a Test Set and Performance in Clinical Practice.
    Miglioretti DL; Ichikawa L; Smith RA; Buist DSM; Carney PA; Geller B; Monsees B; Onega T; Rosenberg R; Sickles EA; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Oct; 24(10):1256-1264. PubMed ID: 28551400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Recall and Cancer Detection Rates for Screening Mammography: Finding the Sweet Spot.
    Grabler P; Sighoko D; Wang L; Allgood K; Ansell D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jan; 208(1):208-213. PubMed ID: 27680714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Facility Mammography Volume in Relation to Breast Cancer Screening Outcomes.
    Onega T; Goldman LE; Walker RL; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Taplin S; Geller BM; Hill DA; Smith-Bindman R
    J Med Screen; 2016 Mar; 23(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 26265482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.