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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30843990)

  • 1. [Measurements errors in screening mammogram interpretation by radiologists].
    Ventura-Alfaro CE
    Rev Salud Publica (Bogota); 2018; 20(4):518-522. PubMed ID: 30843990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. "Memory effect" in observer performance studies of mammograms.
    Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Cohen CS; Clearfield RJ; Gur D
    Acad Radiol; 2005 Mar; 12(3):286-90. PubMed ID: 15766687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Disclosing harmful mammography errors to patients.
    Gallagher TH; Cook AJ; Brenner RJ; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Geller BM; Kerlikowske K; Onega TL; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Lehman CD; Elmore JG
    Radiology; 2009 Nov; 253(2):443-52. PubMed ID: 19710002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
    Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Breast cancers missed by screening radiologists can be detected by reading mammograms at a distance.
    Schreutelkamp IL; Kwee RM; Veekmans P; Adriaensen MEAPM
    Ir J Med Sci; 2019 Feb; 188(1):289-293. PubMed ID: 29725926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
    Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Visual search in breast imaging.
    Gandomkar Z; Mello-Thoms C
    Br J Radiol; 2019 Oct; 92(1102):20190057. PubMed ID: 31287719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography.
    Woodard DB; Gelfand AE; Barlow WE; Elmore JG
    Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(7):1532-51. PubMed ID: 16847870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.
    Kan L; Olivotto IA; Warren Burhenne LJ; Sickles EA; Coldman AJ
    Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):563-7. PubMed ID: 10796940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Audit procedures in the National Breast Screening Study: mammography interpretation.
    Baines CJ; McFarlane DV; Wall C
    Can Assoc Radiol J; 1986 Dec; 37(4):256-60. PubMed ID: 2950109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation.
    Beam CA; Conant EF; Sickles EA
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Feb; 95(4):282-90. PubMed ID: 12591984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Artificial Intelligence in Screening Mammography: A Population Survey of Women's Preferences.
    Ongena YP; Yakar D; Haan M; Kwee TC
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2021 Jan; 18(1 Pt A):79-86. PubMed ID: 33058789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms.
    Laming D; Warren R
    J Med Screen; 2000; 7(1):24-30. PubMed ID: 10807143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Improving Performance of Mammographic Breast Positioning in an Academic Radiology Practice.
    Pal S; Ikeda DM; Jesinger RA; Mickelsen LJ; Chen CA; Larson DB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Apr; 210(4):807-815. PubMed ID: 29412019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.