363 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27637285)
1. 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]
2. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. National Performance Benchmarks for Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Lee CI; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Onega T; Kerlikowske K; Lee JM; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Rauscher GH; Bowles EJA; diFlorio-Alexander RM; Henderson LM;
Radiology; 2023 May; 307(4):e222499. PubMed ID: 37039687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of training with the american college of radiology breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon on mammographic interpretation skills in developing countries.
Lehman CD; Miller L; Rutter CM; Tsu V
Acad Radiol; 2001 Jul; 8(7):647-50. PubMed ID: 11450966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Neddle-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of non-palpable breast cancer].
Becerra-Alcántara GI; Círigo-Villagómez LL; Ramos-Medina F; Robledo-Martínez H; Mar-Merinos CG; Panzi-Altamirano RM
Ginecol Obstet Mex; 2015 Jul; 83(7):400-7. PubMed ID: 26422910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography: detection in dependence of the BI-RADS categories.
Obenauer S; Sohns C; Werner C; Grabbe E
Breast J; 2006; 12(1):16-9. PubMed ID: 16409582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.
Kerlikowske K; Scott CG; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Ma L; Winham S; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Malkov S; Pankratz VS; Cummings SR; Shepherd JA; Brandt KR; Miglioretti DL; Vachon CM
Ann Intern Med; 2018 Jun; 168(11):757-765. PubMed ID: 29710124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Frankel SD; Ominsky SH; Sickles EA; Ernster V
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1998 Dec; 90(23):1801-9. PubMed ID: 9839520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessing Resident Performance in Screening Mammography: Development of a Quantitative Algorithm.
Lewis PJ; Rooney TB; Frazee TE; Poplack SP
Acad Radiol; 2018 May; 25(5):659-664. PubMed ID: 29366681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms.
Lehman C; Holt S; Peacock S; White E; Urban N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jul; 179(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 12076896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.
Harvey JA; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BA; Onega TL;
Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):752-8. PubMed ID: 23249570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Identifying error-making patterns in assessment of mammographic BI-RADS descriptors among radiology residents using statistical pattern recognition.
Mazurowski MA; Barnhart HX; Baker JA; Tourassi GD
Acad Radiol; 2012 Jul; 19(7):865-71. PubMed ID: 22459643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mammographic breast density: How it affects performance indicators in screening programmes?
Posso M; Louro J; Sánchez M; Román M; Vidal C; Sala M; Baré M; Castells X;
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 110():81-87. PubMed ID: 30599878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?
Berg WA; D'Orsi CJ; Jackson VP; Bassett LW; Beam CA; Lewis RS; Crewson PE
Radiology; 2002 Sep; 224(3):871-80. PubMed ID: 12202727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
