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 *

219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25894007)

  • 1. Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
    Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2821-9. PubMed ID: 25894007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
    Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; de Haan AF; Wauters CA; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
    Eur J Cancer; 2015 Feb; 51(3):391-9. PubMed ID: 25573788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.
    Posso MC; Puig T; Quintana MJ; Solà-Roca J; Bonfill X
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):3262-71. PubMed ID: 26747264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Incorporation of the technologist's opinion for arbitration of discrepant assessments among radiologists at screening mammography.
    Coolen AMP; Lameijer JRC; Voogd AC; Strobbe LJ; Louwman MWJ; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Aug; 171(1):143-149. PubMed ID: 29730729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.
    Coolen AMP; Lameijer JRC; Voogd AC; Louwman MWJ; Strobbe LJ; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):337-344. PubMed ID: 29943181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms.
    Ciatto S; Ambrogetti D; Risso G; Catarzi S; Morrone D; Mantellini P; Rosselli Del Turco M
    J Med Screen; 2005; 12(3):125-7. PubMed ID: 16156942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Does computer-aided detection have a role in the arbitration of discordant double-reading opinions in a breast-screening programme?
    James JJ; Cornford EJ
    Clin Radiol; 2009 Jan; 64(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 19070697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.
    Coolen AMP; Voogd AC; Strobbe LJ; Louwman MWJ; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
    Br J Cancer; 2018 Aug; 119(4):503-507. PubMed ID: 30038325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Optimising breast cancer screening reading: blinding the second reader to the first reader's decisions.
    Cooper JA; Jenkinson D; Stinton C; Wallis MG; Hudson S; Taylor-Phillips S
    Eur Radiol; 2022 Jan; 32(1):602-612. PubMed ID: 34117912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On the role of arbitration of discordant double readings of screening mammography: experience from two Italian programmes.
    Caumo F; Brunelli S; Tosi E; Teggi S; Bovo C; Bonavina G; Ciatto S
    Radiol Med; 2011 Feb; 116(1):84-91. PubMed ID: 20981500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Benefits of the quality assured double and arbitration reading of mammograms in the early diagnosis of breast cancer in symptomatic women.
    Waldmann A; Kapsimalakou S; Katalinic A; Grande-Nagel I; Stoeckelhuber BM; Fischer D; Barkhausen J; Vogt FM
    Eur Radiol; 2012 May; 22(5):1014-22. PubMed ID: 22095439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Breast cancer detection accuracy of AI in an entire screening population: a retrospective, multicentre study.
    Elhakim MT; Stougaard SW; Graumann O; Nielsen M; Lång K; Gerke O; Larsen LB; Rasmussen BSB
    Cancer Imaging; 2023 Dec; 23(1):127. PubMed ID: 38124111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Artificial intelligence (AI) for breast cancer screening: BreastScreen population-based cohort study of cancer detection.
    Marinovich ML; Wylie E; Lotter W; Lund H; Waddell A; Madeley C; Pereira G; Houssami N
    EBioMedicine; 2023 Apr; 90():104498. PubMed ID: 36863255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration.
    Skaane P; Bandos AI; Gullien R; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Izadi M; Jebsen IN; Jahr G; Krager M; Hofvind S
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2061-71. PubMed ID: 23553585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms.
    Gromet M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Apr; 190(4):854-9. PubMed ID: 18356428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Breast cancer detection using single-reading of breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) compared to double-reading of 2D-mammography: Evidence from a population-based trial.
    Houssami N; Bernardi D; Pellegrini M; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Tuttobene P; Luparia A; Macaskill P
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Apr; 47():94-99. PubMed ID: 28192742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Using deep learning to assist readers during the arbitration process: a lesion-based retrospective evaluation of breast cancer screening performance.
    Kerschke L; Weigel S; Rodriguez-Ruiz A; Karssemeijer N; Heindel W
    Eur Radiol; 2022 Feb; 32(2):842-852. PubMed ID: 34383147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions.
    Cornford EJ; Evans AJ; James JJ; Burrell HC; Pinder SE; Wilson AR
    Clin Radiol; 2005 Nov; 60(11):1182-7. PubMed ID: 16223614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.