372 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26924162)
1. 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]
2. Does Breast Imaging Experience During Residency Translate Into Improved Initial Performance in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis?
Zhang J; Grimm LJ; Lo JY; Johnson KS; Ghate SV; Walsh R; Mazurowski MA
J Am Coll Radiol; 2015 Jul; 12(7):728-32. PubMed ID: 26143567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Using computer-extracted image features for modeling of error-making patterns in detection of mammographic masses among radiology residents.
Zhang J; Lo JY; Kuzmiak CM; Ghate SV; Yoon SC; Mazurowski MA
Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091907. PubMed ID: 25186394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.
Miglioretti DL; Gard CC; Carney PA; Onega TL; Buist DS; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Geller BM; Elmore JG
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):632-40. PubMed ID: 19789234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Modeling false positive error making patterns in radiology trainees for improved mammography education.
Zhang J; Silber JI; Mazurowski MA
J Biomed Inform; 2015 Apr; 54():50-7. PubMed ID: 25640462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Radiology Trainee Performance in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Relationship Between Difficulty and Error-Making Patterns.
Grimm LJ; Zhang J; Lo JY; Johnson KS; Ghate SV; Walsh R; Mazurowski MA
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Feb; 13(2):198-202. PubMed ID: 26577878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes.
Coldman AJ; Major D; Doyle GP; D'yachkova Y; Phillips N; Onysko J; Shumak R; Smith NE; Wadden N
Radiology; 2006 Mar; 238(3):809-15. PubMed ID: 16424236
[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. 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]
15. 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]
16. Survey of radiology residents: breast imaging training and attitudes.
Bassett LW; Monsees BS; Smith RA; Wang L; Hooshi P; Farria DM; Sayre JW; Feig SA; Jackson VP
Radiology; 2003 Jun; 227(3):862-9. PubMed ID: 12728182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation.
Nodine CF; Mello-Thoms C; Kundel HL; Weinstein SP
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Oct; 179(4):917-23. PubMed ID: 12239037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. QRSE: a novel metric for the evaluation of trainee radiologist reporting skills.
Surrey D; Sharpe RE; Gorniak RJ; Nazarian LN; Rao VM; Flanders AE
J Digit Imaging; 2013 Aug; 26(4):678-82. PubMed ID: 23381098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Surgical and Radiology Trainees' Proficiency in Reading Mammograms: the Importance of Education for Cancer Localisation.
Wells JB; Lewis SJ; Barron M; Trieu PD
J Cancer Educ; 2024 Apr; 39(2):186-193. PubMed ID: 38100062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
