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 *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30037704)

  • 21. Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study.
    Lee CS; Moy L; Hughes D; Golden D; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Hemingway J; Geras A; Duszak R; Rosenkrantz AB
    Radiology; 2021 Sep; 300(3):518-528. PubMed ID: 34156300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Using the BI-RADS lexicon in a restrictive form of double reading as a strategy for minimizing screening mammography recall rates.
    Ghate SV; Baker JA; Kim CE; Johnson KS; Walsh R; Soo MS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Apr; 198(4):962-70. PubMed ID: 22451567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Screening mammography recall rate: does practice site matter?
    Rothschild J; Lourenco AP; Mainiero MB
    Radiology; 2013 Nov; 269(2):348-53. PubMed ID: 23884734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
    McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Weinstein SP; Schnall MD; Conant EF
    Radiology; 2017 Dec; 285(3):778-787. PubMed ID: 28715278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. BI-RADS 3 (short-interval follow-up) assessment rate at diagnostic mammography: Correlation with recall rates and utilization as a performance benchmark.
    Kirshenbaum K; Harris K; Harmon J; Monge J; Dabbous F; Liu Y
    Breast J; 2020 Jul; 26(7):1284-1288. PubMed ID: 32291841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes.
    Coldman AJ; Major D; Doyle GP; D'yachkova Y; Phillips N; Onysko J; Shumak R; Smith NE; Wadden N
    Radiology; 2006 Mar; 238(3):809-15. PubMed ID: 16424236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.
    Sickles EA; Wolverton DE; Dee KE
    Radiology; 2002 Sep; 224(3):861-9. PubMed ID: 12202726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Influence of Mammography Volume on Radiologists' Performance: Results from BreastScreen Norway.
    Hoff SR; Myklebust TÅ; Lee CI; Hofvind S
    Radiology; 2019 Aug; 292(2):289-296. PubMed ID: 31135295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Association between radiologists' and facilities' characteristics and mammography screening detection of ductal carcinoma in situ.
    Théberge I; Vandal N; Perron L; Guertin MH
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2021 May; 187(1):255-266. PubMed ID: 33392846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial.
    Sumkin JH; Ganott MA; Chough DM; Catullo VJ; Zuley ML; Shinde DD; Hakim CM; Bandos AI; Gur D
    Acad Radiol; 2015 Dec; 22(12):1477-82. PubMed ID: 26391857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.
    Carney PA; Abraham L; Cook A; Feig SA; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Sep; 19(9):1114-20. PubMed ID: 22727623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Strategies for Decreasing Screening Mammography Recall Rates While Maintaining Performance Metrics.
    Mullen LA; Panigrahi B; Hollada J; Panigrahi B; Falomo ET; Harvey SC
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Dec; 24(12):1556-1560. PubMed ID: 28760363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effect of Arrival of Prior Mammograms on Recall Negation for Screening Mammograms Performed With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a Clinical Setting.
    Hardesty LA; Lind KE; Gutierrez EJ
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2018 Sep; 15(9):1293-1299. PubMed ID: 30196816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
    McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Akhtar AL; Synnestvedt MB; Schnall M; Conant EF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Nov; 205(5):1143-8. PubMed ID: 26496565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
    Haas BM; Kalra V; Geisel J; Raghu M; Durand M; Philpotts LE
    Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):694-700. PubMed ID: 23901124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.
    Buist DS; Anderson ML; Haneuse SJ; Sickles EA; Smith RA; Carney PA; Taplin SH; Rosenberg RD; Geller BM; Onega TL; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):72-84. PubMed ID: 21343539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?
    Leung JW; Margolin FR; Dee KE; Jacobs RP; Denny SR; Schrumpf JD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Jan; 188(1):236-41. PubMed ID: 17179372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [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]  

  • 40. Inter-reader Variability in the Use of BI-RADS Descriptors for Suspicious Findings on Diagnostic Mammography: A Multi-institution Study of 10 Academic Radiologists.
    Lee AY; Wisner DJ; Aminololama-Shakeri S; Arasu VA; Feig SA; Hargreaves J; Ojeda-Fournier H; Bassett LW; Wells CJ; De Guzman J; Flowers CI; Campbell JE; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Jan; 24(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 27793579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.