227 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26267331)
1. Collective intelligence meets medical decision-making: the collective outperforms the best radiologist.
Wolf M; Krause J; Carney PA; Bogart A; Kurvers RH
PLoS One; 2015; 10(8):e0134269. PubMed ID: 26267331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography.
Woodard DB; Gelfand AE; Barlow WE; Elmore JG
Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(7):1532-51. PubMed ID: 16847870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Boosting medical diagnostics by pooling independent judgments.
Kurvers RH; Herzog SM; Hertwig R; Krause J; Carney PA; Bogart A; Argenziano G; Zalaudek I; Wolf M
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2016 Aug; 113(31):8777-82. PubMed ID: 27432950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment.
Tan A; Freeman DH; Goodwin JS; Freeman JL
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2006 Dec; 100(3):309-18. PubMed ID: 16819566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Collective intelligence in medical decision-making: a systematic scoping review.
Radcliffe K; Lyson HC; Barr-Walker J; Sarkar U
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2019 Aug; 19(1):158. PubMed ID: 31399099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. How does age affect baseline screening mammography performance measures? A decision model.
Keen JD; Keen JE
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2008 Sep; 8():40. PubMed ID: 18803871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influences of Radiology Trainees on Screening Mammography Interpretation.
Hawley JR; Taylor CR; Cubbison AM; Erdal BS; Yildiz VO; Carkaci S
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 May; 13(5):554-61. PubMed ID: 26924162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial.
Bernardi D; Caumo F; Macaskill P; Ciatto S; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Houssami N
Eur J Cancer; 2014 May; 50(7):1232-8. PubMed ID: 24582915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.
Carney PA; Yi JP; Abraham LA; Miglioretti DL; Aiello EJ; Gerrity MS; Reisch L; Berns EA; Sickles EA; Elmore JG
J Gen Intern Med; 2007 Feb; 22(2):234-41. PubMed ID: 17356992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.
Barlow WE; Chi C; Carney PA; Taplin SH; D'Orsi C; Cutter G; Hendrick RE; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Dec; 96(24):1840-50. PubMed ID: 15601640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.
Sickles EA; Wolverton DE; Dee KE
Radiology; 2002 Sep; 224(3):861-9. PubMed ID: 12202726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The problem of image interpretation in mammography: effects of lesion conspicuity on the visual search strategy of radiologists.
Mello-Thoms C
Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79 Spec No 2():S111-6. PubMed ID: 17209115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.
Rodriguez-Ruiz A; Lång K; Gubern-Merida A; Broeders M; Gennaro G; Clauser P; Helbich TH; Chevalier M; Tan T; Mertelmeier T; Wallis MG; Andersson I; Zackrisson S; Mann RM; Sechopoulos I
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2019 Sep; 111(9):916-922. PubMed ID: 30834436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation.
Beam CA; Conant EF; Sickles EA
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Feb; 95(4):282-90. PubMed ID: 12591984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.
Esserman L; Cowley H; Eberle C; Kirkpatrick A; Chang S; Berbaum K; Gale A
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Mar; 94(5):369-75. PubMed ID: 11880475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Diagnostic performance of breast technologists in reading mammograms in a clinical patient population.
van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Flobbe K
Int J Clin Pract; 2010 Mar; 64(4):442-50. PubMed ID: 20456190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. "Memory effect" in observer performance studies of mammograms.
Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Cohen CS; Clearfield RJ; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2005 Mar; 12(3):286-90. PubMed ID: 15766687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
