BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29539959)

  • 41. Improving the radiologist-CAD interaction: designing for appropriate trust.
    Jorritsma W; Cnossen F; van Ooijen PM
    Clin Radiol; 2015 Feb; 70(2):115-22. PubMed ID: 25459198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Computer-aided breast cancer detection using mammograms: a review.
    Ganesan K; Acharya UR; Chua CK; Min LC; Abraham KT; Ng KH
    IEEE Rev Biomed Eng; 2013; 6():77-98. PubMed ID: 23247864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. The influence of a continuing education program on the image interpretation accuracy of rural radiographers.
    Smith TN; Traise P; Cook A
    Rural Remote Health; 2009; 9(2):1145. PubMed ID: 19392573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Small Polyps at Endoluminal CT Colonography Are Often Seen But Ignored by Radiologists.
    Plumb AA; Fanshawe TR; Phillips P; Mallett S; Taylor SA; Helbren E; Boone D; Halligan S
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Oct; 205(4):W424-31. PubMed ID: 26397349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. JOURNAL CLUB: Radiology Report Addenda: A Self-Report Approach to Error Identification, Quantification, and Classification.
    Brigham LR; Mansouri M; Abujudeh HH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Dec; 205(6):1230-9. PubMed ID: 26587930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. CT colonography: false-negative interpretations.
    Doshi T; Rusinak D; Halvorsen RA; Rockey DC; Suzuki K; Dachman AH
    Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):165-73. PubMed ID: 17581901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Interpretation of abnormal lumbosacral spine radiographs. A test comparing students, clinicians, radiology residents, and radiologists in medicine and chiropractic.
    Taylor JA; Clopton P; Bosch E; Miller KA; Marcelis S
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1995 May; 20(10):1147-53; discussion 1154. PubMed ID: 7638657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. [Clinical value of computer-assisted analysis in MR mammography. A comparison between two systems and three observers with different levels of experience].
    Renz DM; Baltzer PA; Kullnig PE; Böttcher J; Vag T; Gajda M; Camara O; Runnebaum IB; Kaiser WA
    Rofo; 2008 Nov; 180(11):968-76. PubMed ID: 18855300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Radiology errors: are we learning from our mistakes?
    Mankad K; Hoey ET; Jones JB; Tirukonda P; Smith JT
    Clin Radiol; 2009 Oct; 64(10):988-93. PubMed ID: 19748004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. A study on two different CAD systems for mammography as an aid to radiological diagnosis in the search of microcalcification clusters.
    Lauria A; Palmiero R; Forni G; Fantacci ME; Imbriaco M; Sodano A; Indovina PL
    Eur J Radiol; 2005 Aug; 55(2):264-9. PubMed ID: 16036158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Analysis of mammographic diagnostic errors in breast clinic.
    Palazzetti V; Guidi F; Ottaviani L; Valeri G; Baldassarre S; Giuseppetti GM
    Radiol Med; 2016 Nov; 121(11):828-833. PubMed ID: 27372707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Utility and costs of radiologist interpretation of perioperative imaging in patients with traumatic single-level thoracolumbar fractures.
    Weber MH; Sivakumaran L; Fortin M; Teles AR; Golan JD; Santaguida C; Jarzem P; Pauyo T
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2017 Nov; 27(5):578-583. PubMed ID: 28885126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
    Nielsen MB; Seitz K
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Error in radiology.
    Goddard P; Leslie A; Jones A; Wakeley C; Kabala J
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Oct; 74(886):949-51. PubMed ID: 11675313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Nonenhanced limited CT in children suspected of having appendicitis: prospective comparison of attending and resident interpretations.
    Lowe LH; Draud KS; Hernanz-Schulman M; Newton MR; Heller RM; Stein SM; Speroff T
    Radiology; 2001 Dec; 221(3):755-9. PubMed ID: 11719672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Radiologic interpretation by family physicians in an office practice setting.
    Bergus GR; Franken EA; Koch TJ; Smith WL; Evans ER; Berbaum KS
    J Fam Pract; 1995 Oct; 41(4):352-6. PubMed ID: 7561708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Computer vision and artificial intelligence in mammography.
    Vyborny CJ; Giger ML
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Mar; 162(3):699-708. PubMed ID: 8109525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography for Liver Disease. A Critical Appraisal of the Many Actors on the Stage.
    Piscaglia F; Salvatore V; Mulazzani L; Cantisani V; Schiavone C
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Feb; 37(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 26871407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. An Avoidable Cognitive Error in Chest Radiography.
    Haddad L; Salame H; Tack D
    J Belg Soc Radiol; 2023; 107(1):101. PubMed ID: 38161970
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.