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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3400118)

  • 1. Inter-observer variability in the interpretation of mammograms.
    Vineis P; Sinistrero G; Temporelli A; Azzoni L; Bigo A; Burke P; Ciccone G; Fasciano F; Ferraris R; Frigerio A
    Tumori; 1988 Jun; 74(3):275-9. PubMed ID: 3400118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study.
    Ciccone G; Vineis P; Frigerio A; Segnan N
    Eur J Cancer; 1992; 28A(6-7):1054-8. PubMed ID: 1627374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.
    Kim SH; Lee EH; Jun JK; Kim YM; Chang YW; Lee JH; Kim HW; Choi EJ;
    Korean J Radiol; 2019 Feb; 20(2):218-224. PubMed ID: 30672161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.
    Elmore JG; Miglioretti DL; Reisch LM; Barton MB; Kreuter W; Christiansen CL; Fletcher SW
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Sep; 94(18):1373-80. PubMed ID: 12237283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The inter-observer variability of breast density scoring between mammography technologists and breast radiologists and its effect on the rate of adjuvant ultrasound.
    Mazor RD; Savir A; Gheorghiu D; Weinstein Y; Abadi-Korek I; Shabshin N
    Eur J Radiol; 2016 May; 85(5):957-62. PubMed ID: 27130056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.
    Elmore JG; Wells CK; Lee CH; Howard DH; Feinstein AR
    N Engl J Med; 1994 Dec; 331(22):1493-9. PubMed ID: 7969300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms.
    Redondo A; Comas M; Macià F; Ferrer F; Murta-Nascimento C; Maristany MT; Molins E; Sala M; Castells X
    Br J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 85(1019):1465-70. PubMed ID: 22993385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Duijm LE; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Nederend J; Jansen FH; Broeders MJ
    Eur Radiol; 2014 May; 24(5):1097-104. PubMed ID: 24500086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.
    Torres-Mejía G; Smith RA; Carranza-Flores Mde L; Bogart A; Martínez-Matsushita L; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Ortega-Olvera C; Montemayor-Varela E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Bautista-Arredondo S; Sánchez-González G; Martínez-Montañez OG; Uscanga-Sánchez SR; Lazcano-Ponce E; Hernández-Ávila M
    BMC Cancer; 2015 May; 15():410. PubMed ID: 25975383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome.
    Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; van Ineveld BM; Roumen RM; de Koning HJ
    Eur J Cancer; 2008 Jun; 44(9):1223-8. PubMed ID: 18400488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Inter-observer agreement according to three methods of evaluating mammographic density and parenchymal pattern in a case control study: impact on relative risk of breast cancer.
    Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Diao P; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
    BMC Cancer; 2015 Apr; 15():274. PubMed ID: 25884160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The role of the reference radiologist. Estimates of inter-observer agreement and potential delay in cancer detection in the national breast screening study.
    Baines CJ; McFarlane DV; Miller AB
    Invest Radiol; 1990 Sep; 25(9):971-6. PubMed ID: 2211054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Can radiographers read screening mammograms?
    Wivell G; Denton ER; Eve CB; Inglis JC; Harvey I
    Clin Radiol; 2003 Jan; 58(1):63-7. PubMed ID: 12565207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.
    Esserman L; Cowley H; Eberle C; Kirkpatrick A; Chang S; Berbaum K; Gale A
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Mar; 94(5):369-75. PubMed ID: 11880475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening.
    McLean L; Simpson W
    Clin Radiol; 1995 Jan; 50(1):67. PubMed ID: 7834983
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening.
    Husien AM
    Clin Radiol; 1995 Jan; 50(1):67. PubMed ID: 7834982
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.
    Taplin S; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Fenton JJ; Berns EA; Carney PA; Cutter GR; Sickles EA; Carl D; Elmore JG
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Jun; 100(12):876-87. PubMed ID: 18544742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.