BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

345 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25794085)

  • 1. Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?
    Henderson LM; Benefield T; Bowling JM; Durham DD; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Yankaskas BC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):903-8. PubMed ID: 25794085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
    Henderson LM; Benefield T; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Durham DD; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM
    Acad Radiol; 2015 Mar; 22(3):278-89. PubMed ID: 25435185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.
    Elmore JG; Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Buist DS
    Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):641-51. PubMed ID: 19864507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
    Buist DS; Anderson ML; Smith RA; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Monsees BS; Sickles EA; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Onega TL
    Radiology; 2014 Nov; 273(2):351-64. PubMed ID: 24960110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening.
    Svahn TM; Macaskill P; Houssami N
    Breast; 2015 Dec; 24(6):687-93. PubMed ID: 26433751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.
    Halladay JR; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM; Alexander C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Sep; 195(3):782-5. PubMed ID: 20729460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.
    Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Carney PA; Sickles EA; Elmore JG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Aug; 205(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 26204300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reality check: perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers.
    Fenton JJ; Egger J; Carney PA; Cutter G; D'Orsi C; Sickles EA; Fosse J; Abraham L; Taplin SH; Barlow W; Hendrick RE; Elmore JG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 16794153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.
    Miglioretti DL; Smith-Bindman R; Abraham L; Brenner RJ; Carney PA; Bowles EJ; Buist DS; Elmore JG
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Dec; 99(24):1854-63. PubMed ID: 18073379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography.
    Elmore JG; Taplin SH; Barlow WE; Cutter GR; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE; Abraham LA; Fosse JS; Carney PA
    Radiology; 2005 Jul; 236(1):37-46. PubMed ID: 15987961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The inter-observer variability of breast density scoring between mammography technologists and breast radiologists and its effect on the rate of adjuvant ultrasound.
    Mazor RD; Savir A; Gheorghiu D; Weinstein Y; Abadi-Korek I; Shabshin N
    Eur J Radiol; 2016 May; 85(5):957-62. PubMed ID: 27130056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Medical radiologic technologist review: effects on a population-based breast cancer screening program.
    Tonita JM; Hillis JP; Lim CH
    Radiology; 1999 May; 211(2):529-33. PubMed ID: 10228538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.
    Haneuse S; Buist DS; Miglioretti DL; Anderson ML; Carney PA; Onega T; Geller BM; Kerlikowske K; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Taplin SH; Smith RA; Sickles EA
    Radiology; 2012 Jan; 262(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 22106351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.