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 *

252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29694675)

  • 1. Recurrence quantification analysis of radiologists' scanpaths when interpreting mammograms.
    Gandomkar Z; Tay K; Brennan PC; Mello-Thoms C
    Med Phys; 2018 Jul; 45(7):3052-3062. PubMed ID: 29694675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Can eye-tracking metrics be used to better pair radiologists in a mammogram reading task?
    Gandomkar Z; Tay K; Brennan PC; Kozuch E; Mello-Thoms C
    Med Phys; 2018 Nov; 45(11):4844-4856. PubMed ID: 30168153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound images.
    Sahiner B; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Roubidoux MA; Paramagul C; Bailey JE; Nees AV; Blane CE; Adler DD; Patterson SK; Klein KA; Pinsky RW; Helvie MA
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Jul; 16(7):810-8. PubMed ID: 19375953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.
    Rawashdeh MA; Lee WB; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard RC; Black DA; Brennan PC
    Radiology; 2013 Oct; 269(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 23737538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A review of factors influencing radiologists' visual search behaviour.
    Ganesan A; Alakhras M; Brennan PC; Mello-Thoms C
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2018 Dec; 62(6):747-757. PubMed ID: 30198628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores.
    Trieu PDY; Lewis SJ; Li T; Ho K; Tapia KA; Brennan PC
    Br J Radiol; 2020 Oct; 93(1114):20200363. PubMed ID: 32730088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fractal analysis of visual search activity for mass detection during mammographic screening.
    Alamudun F; Yoon HJ; Hudson KB; Morin-Ducote G; Hammond T; Tourassi GD
    Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):832-846. PubMed ID: 28079249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Visual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms.
    Krupinski EA
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Feb; 3(2):137-44. PubMed ID: 8796654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. iCAP: An Individualized Model Combining Gaze Parameters and Image-Based Features to Predict Radiologists' Decisions While Reading Mammograms.
    Gandomkar Z; Tay K; Ryder W; Brennan PC; Mello-Thoms C
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2017 May; 36(5):1066-1075. PubMed ID: 28055858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Consistency of breast density categories in serial screening mammograms: A comparison between automated and human assessment.
    Holland K; van Zelst J; den Heeten GJ; Imhof-Tas M; Mann RM; van Gils CH; Karssemeijer N
    Breast; 2016 Oct; 29():49-54. PubMed ID: 27420382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
    Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns.
    Al Mousa DS; Brennan PC; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Tan J; Mello-Thoms C
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1386-93. PubMed ID: 25172414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Investigating the link between radiologists' gaze, diagnostic decision, and image content.
    Tourassi G; Voisin S; Paquit V; Krupinski E
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2013; 20(6):1067-75. PubMed ID: 23788627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Variations in breast cancer detection rates during mammogram-reading sessions: does experience have an impact?
    Alshabibi AS; Suleiman ME; Albeshan SM; Heard R; Brennan PC
    Br J Radiol; 2022 Jan; 95(1129):20210895. PubMed ID: 34735290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Does mammographic density remain a radiological challenge in the digital era?
    Al-Mousa DS; Rawashdeh M; Alakhras M; Spuur KM; AbuTaimai R; Brennan PC
    Acta Radiol; 2021 Jun; 62(6):707-714. PubMed ID: 32623914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A machine learning model based on readers' characteristics to predict their performances in reading screening mammograms.
    Gandomkar Z; Lewis SJ; Li T; Ekpo EU; Brennan PC
    Breast Cancer; 2022 Jul; 29(4):589-598. PubMed ID: 35122217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Head-mounted versus remote eye tracking of radiologists searching for breast cancer: a comparison.
    Mello-Thoms C; Britton C; Abrams G; Hakim C; Shah R; Hardesty L; Maitz G; Gur D
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Feb; 13(2):203-9. PubMed ID: 16428056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Observer Variability in Breast Cancer Diagnosis between Countries with and without Breast Screening.
    Demchig D; Mello-Thoms C; Lee W; Khurelsukh K; Ramish A; Brennan P
    Acad Radiol; 2019 Jan; 26(1):62-68. PubMed ID: 29580792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. From eye movements to scanpath networks: A method for studying individual differences in expository text reading.
    Ma X; Liu Y; Clariana R; Gu C; Li P
    Behav Res Methods; 2023 Feb; 55(2):730-750. PubMed ID: 35445941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms.
    Molins E; Macià F; Ferrer F; Maristany MT; Castells X
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2008 Apr; 8():91. PubMed ID: 18439248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.