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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29621618)

  • 21. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group.
    Pisano ED; Cole EB; Major S; Zong S; Hemminger BM; Muller KE; Johnston RE; Walsh R; Conant E; Fajardo LL; Feig SA; Nishikawa RM; Yaffe MJ; Williams MB; Aylward SR
    Radiology; 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30. PubMed ID: 10966717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Breast imaging: a comparison of digital luminescence radiographs displayed on TV-monitor and film-screen mammography.
    Jarlman O; Borg A; Braw M; Kehler M; Lyttkens K; Samuelsson L
    Cancer Detect Prev; 1994; 18(5):375-81. PubMed ID: 7812984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
    Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
    J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Predicting breast cancer risk using mammographic density measurements from both mammogram sides and views.
    Stone J; Ding J; Warren RM; Duffy SW
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2010 Nov; 124(2):551-4. PubMed ID: 20544272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening.
    Waldherr C; Cerny P; Altermatt HJ; Berclaz G; Ciriolo M; Buser K; Sonnenschein MJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jan; 200(1):226-31. PubMed ID: 23255766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography.
    Durand MA; Haas BM; Yao X; Geisel JL; Raghu M; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Philpotts LE
    Radiology; 2015 Jan; 274(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 25188431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers.
    Giger ML; Inciardi MF; Edwards A; Papaioannou J; Drukker K; Jiang Y; Brem R; Brown JB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jun; 206(6):1341-50. PubMed ID: 27043979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study.
    Skaane P; Gullien R; Eben EB; Sandhaug M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Stoeblen F
    Acta Radiol; 2015 Apr; 56(4):404-12. PubMed ID: 24682405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Linked claims and medical records for cancer case management : evaluation of mammography abnormalities.
    Eberl MM; Watroba N; Reinhardt M; Pomerantz J; Serghany J; Broffman G; Fox CH; Mahoney MC; Edge SB
    Cancer; 2007 Aug; 110(3):518-24. PubMed ID: 17577210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Mammography as a screening tool for peripheral vascular disease.
    Dale PS; Graham J; Nichols KW; Catchings T; Richards M
    Am J Surg; 2006 Oct; 192(4):488-91. PubMed ID: 16978956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. [Evaluation of the results after using of the BI-RADS categories in 1,777 clinical mammograms].
    Hauth EA; Khan K; Wolfgarten B; Betzler A; Kimmig R; Forsting M
    Radiologe; 2008 Mar; 48(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 17265008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Detectability of BI-RADS category 3 or higher breast lesions and reading time on mammography: comparison between 5-MP and 8-MP LCD monitors.
    Yabuuchi H; Kawanami S; Kamitani T; Matsumura T; Yamasaki Y; Morishita J; Honda H
    Acta Radiol; 2017 Apr; 58(4):403-407. PubMed ID: 27307027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Computer-assisted diagnosis in full-field digital mammography--results in dependence of readers experiences.
    Sohns C; Angic B; Sossalla S; Konietschke F; Obenauer S
    Breast J; 2010; 16(5):490-7. PubMed ID: 20642459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description.
    Baker JA; Kornguth PJ; Floyd CE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Apr; 166(4):773-8. PubMed ID: 8610547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
    Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Fasciano M; Tagliafico A; Bosco D; Casella C; Bogetti C; Bergamasco L; Fonio P; Gandini G
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):765-773. PubMed ID: 28819781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Surveillance of probably benign (BI-RADS 3) lesions in mammography: what is the right follow-up protocol?
    Buch KA; Qureshi MM; Carpentier B; Cunningham DA; Stone M; Jaffe C; Quinn M; Gonzalez C; LaVoye J; Hines N; Bloch BN
    Breast J; 2015; 21(2):168-74. PubMed ID: 25669425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms.
    Hakim CM; Catullo VJ; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Kelly AE; Shinde DD; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Bandos AI; Gur D
    Radiology; 2015 Jul; 276(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 25768673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.