195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29880817)
1. Radiologists can detect the 'gist' of breast cancer before any overt signs of cancer appear.
Brennan PC; Gandomkar Z; Ekpo EU; Tapia K; Trieu PD; Lewis SJ; Wolfe JM; Evans KK
Sci Rep; 2018 Jun; 8(1):8717. PubMed ID: 29880817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Using global feedback to induce learning of gist of abnormality in mammograms.
Raat EM; Kyle-Davidson C; Evans KK
Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2023 Jan; 8(1):3. PubMed ID: 36617595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A half-second glimpse often lets radiologists identify breast cancer cases even when viewing the mammogram of the opposite breast.
Evans KK; Haygood TM; Cooper J; Culpan AM; Wolfe JM
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2016 Sep; 113(37):10292-7. PubMed ID: 27573841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Detecting the "gist" of breast cancer in mammograms three years before localized signs of cancer are visible.
Evans KK; Culpan AM; Wolfe JM
Br J Radiol; 2019 Jul; 92(1099):20190136. PubMed ID: 31166769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram.
Raat EM; Farr I; Wolfe JM; Evans KK
Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2021 Nov; 6(1):72. PubMed ID: 34743266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computer-extracted global radiomic features can predict the radiologists' first impression about the abnormality of a screening mammogram.
Siviengphanom S; Lewis SJ; Brennan PC; Gandomkar Z
Br J Radiol; 2024 Jan; 97(1153):168-179. PubMed ID: 38263826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Early signs of cancer present in the fine detail of mammograms.
Raat EM; Evans KK
PLoS One; 2023; 18(4):e0282872. PubMed ID: 37018164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Breast carcinoma diagnosed in mammographic screening incidentally. Research on the radiologic signs in prior mammograms].
Marra V; Frigerio A; Di Virgilio MR; Menna S; Burke P
Radiol Med; 1999 Nov; 98(5):342-6. PubMed ID: 10780212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening.
Roelofs AA; Karssemeijer N; Wedekind N; Beck C; van Woudenberg S; Snoeren PR; Hendriks JH; Rosselli del Turco M; Bjurstam N; Junkermann H; Beijerinck D; Séradour B; Evertsz CJ
Radiology; 2007 Jan; 242(1):70-7. PubMed ID: 17185661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Global processing provides malignancy evidence complementary to the information captured by humans or machines following detailed mammogram inspection.
Gandomkar Z; Siviengphanom S; Ekpo EU; Suleiman M; Taba ST; Li T; Xu D; Evans KK; Lewis SJ; Wolfe JM; Brennan PC
Sci Rep; 2021 Oct; 11(1):20122. PubMed ID: 34635726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Features of prospectively overlooked computer-aided detection marks on prior screening digital mammograms in women with breast cancer.
Cho N; Kim SJ; Choi HY; Lyou CY; Moon WK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Nov; 195(5):1276-82. PubMed ID: 20966340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Interpretative characteristics and case features associated with the performances of radiologists in reading mammograms: A study from a non-screening population in Asia.
Trieu PDY; Puslednik L; Colley B; Brennan A; Rodriguez VC; Cook N; Dean K; Dryburgh S; Lowe H; Mahon C; McGowan S; O'Brien J; Moog W; Whale J; Wong D; Li T; Brennan PC
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol; 2021 Feb; 17(1):139-148. PubMed ID: 32894814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast screening: What can the interval cancer review teach us? Are we perhaps being a bit too hard on ourselves?
Lekanidi K; Dilks P; Suaris T; Kennett S; Purushothaman H
Eur J Radiol; 2017 Sep; 94():13-15. PubMed ID: 28941754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Early detection and classification of abnormality in prior mammograms using image-to-image translation and YOLO techniques.
Baccouche A; Garcia-Zapirain B; Zheng Y; Elmaghraby AS
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2022 Jun; 221():106884. PubMed ID: 35594582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening.
Ikeda DM; Birdwell RL; O'Shaughnessy KF; Brenner RJ; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2003 Feb; 226(2):494-503. PubMed ID: 12563145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Computer-aided detection output on 172 subtle findings on normal mammograms previously obtained in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography.
Ikeda DM; Birdwell RL; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA; Brenner RJ
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):811-9. PubMed ID: 14764891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.
Beam CA; Layde PM; Sullivan DC
Arch Intern Med; 1996 Jan; 156(2):209-13. PubMed ID: 8546556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
