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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7129740)

  • 21. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer.
    Tabàr L; Fagerberg G; Duffy SW; Day NE; Gad A; Gröntoft O
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1992 Jan; 30(1):187-210. PubMed ID: 1732926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Mammography service screening and breast cancer mortality in New Zealand: a National Cohort Study 1999-2011.
    Morrell S; Taylor R; Roder D; Robson B; Gregory M; Craig K
    Br J Cancer; 2017 Mar; 116(6):828-839. PubMed ID: 28183141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Estimating lead time and sensitivity in a screening program without estimating the incidence in the screened group.
    Straatman H; Peer PG; Verbeek AL
    Biometrics; 1997 Mar; 53(1):217-29. PubMed ID: 9147591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Quantification of length-bias in screening trials with covariate-dependent test sensitivity.
    Heltshe SL; Kafadar K; Prorok PC
    Biom J; 2015 Sep; 57(5):777-96. PubMed ID: 25980962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A data-analytic approach for estimating lead time and screening benefit based on survival curves in randomized cancer screening trials.
    Kafadar K; Prorok PC
    Stat Med; 1994 Mar 15-Apr 15; 13(5-7):569-86. PubMed ID: 8023036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Population estimates of survival in women with screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancer taking account of lead time and length bias.
    Lawrence G; Wallis M; Allgood P; Nagtegaal ID; Warwick J; Cafferty FH; Houssami N; Kearins O; Tappenden N; O'Sullivan E; Duffy SW
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 Jul; 116(1):179-85. PubMed ID: 18622697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Computational methods in medical decision making: to screen or not to screen?
    Kafadar K; Prorok PC
    Stat Med; 2005 Feb; 24(4):569-81. PubMed ID: 15678410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened.
    Webb ML; Cady B; Michaelson JS; Bush DM; Calvillo KZ; Kopans DB; Smith BL
    Cancer; 2014 Sep; 120(18):2839-46. PubMed ID: 24018987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Crude open biopsy rates for benign screen detected lesions no longer reflect breast screening quality--time to change the standard.
    Maxwell AJ; Pearson JM; Bishop HM
    J Med Screen; 2002; 9(2):83-5. PubMed ID: 12133928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. An evaluation of the prevalent round of the breast screening programme in south east Thames, 1988-1993: achievement of quality standards and population impact.
    Garvican L; Littlejohns P
    J Med Screen; 1996; 3(3):123-8. PubMed ID: 8946306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Mammography screening for breast cancer in Copenhagen April 1991-March 1997. Mammography Screening Evaluation Group.
    Lynge E
    APMIS Suppl; 1998; 83():1-44. PubMed ID: 9850674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Assessment of mammography screening and its introduction in Germany in the Statutory Early Diagnosis Program].
    von Fournier D
    Zentralbl Gynakol; 1999; 121(3):159-65. PubMed ID: 10209861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. An analysis of survival differences between clinically and screen-detected cancer patients.
    Habbema JD; van Oortmarssen GJ; van Putten DJ
    Stat Med; 1983; 2(2):279-85. PubMed ID: 6648143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Estimation of post-lead-time survival under dependence between lead-time and post-lead-time survival.
    Xu JL; Fagerstrom RM; Prorok PC
    Stat Med; 1999 Jan; 18(2):155-62. PubMed ID: 10028136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Decline in breast cancer mortality: how much is attributable to screening?
    Njor SH; Schwartz W; Blichert-Toft M; Lynge E
    J Med Screen; 2015 Mar; 22(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 25492943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Changes in breast cancer mortality in Navarre (Spain) after introduction of a screening programme.
    Ascunce EN; Moreno-Iribas C; Barcos Urtiaga A; Ardanaz E; Ederra Sanz M; Castilla J; Egüés N
    J Med Screen; 2007; 14(1):14-20. PubMed ID: 17362566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood test within a multiple disease screening programme: an experience from Keelung, Taiwan.
    Yang KC; Liao CS; Chiu YH; Yen AM; Chen TH
    J Med Screen; 2006; 13 Suppl 1():S8-13. PubMed ID: 17227635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Intermediate determinants of mortality in the evaluation of screening.
    Morrison AS
    Int J Epidemiol; 1991 Sep; 20(3):642-50. PubMed ID: 1955248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Reducing the effects of lead-time bias, length bias and over-detection in evaluating screening mammography: a censored bivariate data approach.
    Mahnken JD; Chan W; Freeman DH; Freeman JL
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Dec; 17(6):643-63. PubMed ID: 18445697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.