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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26262216)

  • 1. Screening Mammography Efficacy: A Comparison Between Screen-Film, Computed Radiography and Digital Mammography in Taiwan.
    Elbakkoush AA; Atique S; Chiang IJ
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2015; 216():914. PubMed ID: 26262216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program.
    Séradour B; Heid P; Estève J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jan; 202(1):229-36. PubMed ID: 24370149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program.
    Chiarelli AM; Edwards SA; Prummel MV; Muradali D; Majpruz V; Done SJ; Brown P; Shumak RS; Yaffe MJ
    Radiology; 2013 Sep; 268(3):684-93. PubMed ID: 23674784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.
    Sala M; Comas M; Macià F; Martinez J; Casamitjana M; Castells X
    Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 19420316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
    Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of screening whole-breast sonography as a supplemental tool in conjunction with mammography in women with dense breasts.
    Chae EY; Kim HH; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Kim H
    J Ultrasound Med; 2013 Sep; 32(9):1573-8. PubMed ID: 23980217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
    Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST.
    Hixson GL; Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Yaffe MJ; Gatsonis CA
    Radiology; 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3. PubMed ID: 18641261
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.
    Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Baum JK; Acharyya S; Cormack JB; Hanna LA; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Jong RA; Rebner M; Tosteson AN; Gatsonis CA;
    Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):376-83. PubMed ID: 18227537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability?
    Kopans DB; Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; Baum JK; Gatsonis CA
    Radiology; 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703. PubMed ID: 18641262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.
    Del Turco MR; Mantellini P; Ciatto S; Bonardi R; Martinelli F; Lazzari B; Houssami N
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Oct; 189(4):860-6. PubMed ID: 17885057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program.
    Heddson B; Rönnow K; Olsson M; Miller D
    Eur J Radiol; 2007 Dec; 64(3):419-25. PubMed ID: 17383841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography.
    Bosmans H; De Hauwere A; Lemmens K; Zanca F; Thierens H; Van Ongeval C; Van Herck K; Van Steen A; Martens P; Bleyen L; Vande Putte G; Kellen E; Mortier G; Van Limbergen E
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Oct; 23(10):2891-8. PubMed ID: 23689308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Patient doses from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening programme.
    Hauge IH; Pedersen K; Sanderud A; Hofvind S; Olerud HM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jan; 148(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 21335333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms.
    Haygood TM; Wang J; Atkinson EN; Lane D; Stephens TW; Patel P; Whitman GJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Jan; 192(1):216-20. PubMed ID: 19098202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study.
    Bluekens AM; Holland R; Karssemeijer N; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
    Radiology; 2012 Dec; 265(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 23033499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Is the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsy of calcifications different for digital and film-screen mammography?
    McLaughlin CT; Neal CH; Helvie MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Oct; 203(4):917-22. PubMed ID: 25247961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Implications of CISNET modeling on number needed to screen and mortality reduction with digital mammography in women 40-49 years old.
    Hendrick RE; Helvie MA; Hardesty LA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Dec; 203(6):1379-81. PubMed ID: 25415718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.