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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39077968)

  • 1. Modeling Radiologists' Assessments to Explore Pairing Strategies for Optimized Double Reading of Screening Mammograms.
    Gommers JJJ; Abbey CK; Strand F; Taylor-Phillips S; Jenkinson DJ; Larsen M; Hofvind S; Broeders MJM; Sechopoulos I
    Med Decis Making; 2024 Oct; 44(7):828-842. PubMed ID: 39077968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Optimizing the Pairs of Radiologists That Double Read Screening Mammograms.
    Gommers JJJ; Abbey CK; Strand F; Taylor-Phillips S; Jenkinson DJ; Larsen M; Hofvind S; Sechopoulos I; Broeders MJM
    Radiology; 2023 Oct; 309(1):e222691. PubMed ID: 37874241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography.
    Beam CA; Sullivan DC; Layde PM
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Nov; 3(11):891-7. PubMed ID: 8959178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms.
    Schaffter T; Buist DSM; Lee CI; Nikulin Y; Ribli D; Guan Y; Lotter W; Jie Z; Du H; Wang S; Feng J; Feng M; Kim HE; Albiol F; Albiol A; Morrell S; Wojna Z; Ahsen ME; Asif U; Jimeno Yepes A; Yohanandan S; Rabinovici-Cohen S; Yi D; Hoff B; Yu T; Chaibub Neto E; Rubin DL; Lindholm P; Margolies LR; McBride RB; Rothstein JH; Sieh W; Ben-Ari R; Harrer S; Trister A; Friend S; Norman T; Sahiner B; Strand F; Guinney J; Stolovitzky G; ; Mackey L; Cahoon J; Shen L; Sohn JH; Trivedi H; Shen Y; Buturovic L; Pereira JC; Cardoso JS; Castro E; Kalleberg KT; Pelka O; Nedjar I; Geras KJ; Nensa F; Goan E; Koitka S; Caballero L; Cox DD; Krishnaswamy P; Pandey G; Friedrich CM; Perrin D; Fookes C; Shi B; Cardoso Negrie G; Kawczynski M; Cho K; Khoo CS; Lo JY; Sorensen AG; Jung H
    JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Mar; 3(3):e200265. PubMed ID: 32119094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
    Buist DS; Anderson ML; Smith RA; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Monsees BS; Sickles EA; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Onega TL
    Radiology; 2014 Nov; 273(2):351-64. PubMed ID: 24960110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Discordant and false-negative interpretations at digital breast tomosynthesis in the prospective Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) using independent double reading.
    Skaane P; Østerås BH; Yanakiev S; Lie T; Eben EB; Gullien R; Brandal SHB
    Eur Radiol; 2024 Jun; 34(6):3912-3923. PubMed ID: 37938385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.
    Posso MC; Puig T; Quintana MJ; Solà-Roca J; Bonfill X
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):3262-71. PubMed ID: 26747264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population screening trial: A descriptive study.
    Bernardi D; Li T; Pellegrini M; Macaskill P; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Houssami N
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 106():26-31. PubMed ID: 30150047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Performance of Radiologists and Radiographers in Double Reading Mammograms: The UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program.
    Chen Y; James JJ; Michalopoulou E; Darker IT; Jenkins J
    Radiology; 2023 Jan; 306(1):102-109. PubMed ID: 36098643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening.
    Svahn TM; Macaskill P; Houssami N
    Breast; 2015 Dec; 24(6):687-93. PubMed ID: 26433751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in screening mammography in Sweden: a prospective, population-based, paired-reader, non-inferiority study.
    Dembrower K; Crippa A; Colón E; Eklund M; Strand F;
    Lancet Digit Health; 2023 Oct; 5(10):e703-e711. PubMed ID: 37690911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial.
    Bernardi D; Caumo F; Macaskill P; Ciatto S; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Houssami N
    Eur J Cancer; 2014 May; 50(7):1232-8. PubMed ID: 24582915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.
    Elmore JG; Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Buist DS
    Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):641-51. PubMed ID: 19864507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Artificial intelligence (AI) for breast cancer screening: BreastScreen population-based cohort study of cancer detection.
    Marinovich ML; Wylie E; Lotter W; Lund H; Waddell A; Madeley C; Pereira G; Houssami N
    EBioMedicine; 2023 Apr; 90():104498. PubMed ID: 36863255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.
    Duijm LE; Louwman MW; Groenewoud JH; van de Poll-Franse LV; Fracheboud J; Coebergh JW
    Br J Cancer; 2009 Mar; 100(6):901-7. PubMed ID: 19259088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
    Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2821-9. PubMed ID: 25894007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Does it matter for the radiologists' performance whether they read short or long batches in organized mammographic screening?
    Backmann HA; Larsen M; Danielsen AS; Hofvind S
    Eur Radiol; 2021 Dec; 31(12):9548-9555. PubMed ID: 34110427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Using deep learning to assist readers during the arbitration process: a lesion-based retrospective evaluation of breast cancer screening performance.
    Kerschke L; Weigel S; Rodriguez-Ruiz A; Karssemeijer N; Heindel W
    Eur Radiol; 2022 Feb; 32(2):842-852. PubMed ID: 34383147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.