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 *

436 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7969300)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Potential of computer-aided diagnosis to reduce variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms depicting microcalcifications.
    Jiang Y; Nishikawa RM; Schmidt RA; Toledano AY; Doi K
    Radiology; 2001 Sep; 220(3):787-94. PubMed ID: 11526283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms.
    Molins E; Macià F; Ferrer F; Maristany MT; Castells X
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2008 Apr; 8():91. PubMed ID: 18439248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience?
    Elmore JG; Wells CK; Howard DH
    J Womens Health; 1998 May; 7(4):443-9. PubMed ID: 9611702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
    Henderson LM; Benefield T; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Durham DD; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM
    Acad Radiol; 2015 Mar; 22(3):278-89. PubMed ID: 25435185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.
    Théberge I; Chang SL; Vandal N; Daigle JM; Guertin MH; Pelletier E; Brisson J
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Mar; 106(3):djt461. PubMed ID: 24598715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. "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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?
    Henderson LM; Benefield T; Bowling JM; Durham DD; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Yankaskas BC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):903-8. PubMed ID: 25794085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Improvement in radiologists' characterization of malignant and benign breast masses on serial mammograms with computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study.
    Hadjiiski L; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Blane C; Paramagul C; Petrick N; Bailey J; Klein K; Foster M; Patterson S; Adler D; Nees A; Shen J
    Radiology; 2004 Oct; 233(1):255-65. PubMed ID: 15317954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. An assessment of the influence of clinical breast examination reports on the interpretation of mammograms in a breast screening program. Ontario Breast Screening Program Radiologists Research Group.
    Knight JA; Libstug AR; Moravan V; Boyd NF
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 1998 Mar; 48(1):65-71. PubMed ID: 9541190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography.
    Beam CA; Conant EF; Sickles EA
    Acad Radiol; 2002 May; 9(5):531-40. PubMed ID: 12458879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting.
    Venta LA; Hendrick RE; Adler YT; DeLeon P; Mengoni PM; Scharl AM; Comstock CE; Hansen L; Kay N; Coveler A; Cutter G
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 May; 176(5):1241-8. PubMed ID: 11312188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Classification of fatty and dense breast parenchyma: comparison of automatic volumetric density measurement and radiologists' classification and their inter-observer variation.
    Østerås BH; Martinsen AC; Brandal SH; Chaudhry KN; Eben E; Haakenaasen U; Falk RS; Skaane P
    Acta Radiol; 2016 Oct; 57(10):1178-85. PubMed ID: 26792823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.