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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8293648)

  • 1. Double reading of mammography screening films--one radiologist or two?
    Anttinen I; Pamilo M; Soiva M; Roiha M
    Clin Radiol; 1993 Dec; 48(6):414-21. PubMed ID: 8293648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms.
    Brown J; Bryan S; Warren R
    BMJ; 1996 Mar; 312(7034):809-12. PubMed ID: 8608287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Computer-aided detection output on 172 subtle findings on normal mammograms previously obtained in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography.
    Ikeda DM; Birdwell RL; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA; Brenner RJ
    Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):811-9. PubMed ID: 14764891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mammography screening methods and diagnostic results.
    Thurfjell E
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1995; 395():1-22. PubMed ID: 7839866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Additional Breast Cancer Detection at Digital Screening Mammography through Quality Assurance Sessions between Technologists and Radiologists.
    Coolen AMP; Korte B; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Bodewes HW; Voogd AC; Duijm LEM
    Radiology; 2020 Mar; 294(3):509-517. PubMed ID: 31909697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Incorporation of the technologist's opinion for arbitration of discrepant assessments among radiologists at screening mammography.
    Coolen AMP; Lameijer JRC; Voogd AC; Strobbe LJ; Louwman MWJ; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Aug; 171(1):143-149. PubMed ID: 29730729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Mammographic features of breast cancers at single reading with computer-aided detection and at double reading in a large multicenter prospective trial of computer-aided detection: CADET II.
    James JJ; Gilbert FJ; Wallis MG; Gillan MG; Astley SM; Boggis CR; Agbaje OF; Brentnall AR; Duffy SW
    Radiology; 2010 Aug; 256(2):379-86. PubMed ID: 20656831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of radiographer/radiologist double film reading with single reading in breast cancer screening.
    Pauli R; Hammond S; Cooke J; Ansell J
    J Med Screen; 1996; 3(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 8861046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Independent double reading of screening mammograms.
    Ciatto S; Del Turco MR; Morrone D; Catarzi S; Ambrogetti D; Cariddi A; Zappa M
    J Med Screen; 1995; 2(2):99-101. PubMed ID: 7497164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program.
    Hofvind S; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Skaane P
    Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):652-60. PubMed ID: 19789229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mammography screening using independent double reading with consensus: is there a potential benefit for computer-aided detection?
    Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Hofvind S; Jahr G; Castellino RA
    Acta Radiol; 2012 Apr; 53(3):241-8. PubMed ID: 22287148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
    J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. [The assessment of the impact of a double reading by expert readers in a mass mammographic study].
    Brancato B; Ciatto S; Bricolo D; Bonardi R; Ambrogetti D; Zappa M; Miccinesi G; Tonegutti M; Pistolesi GF
    Radiol Med; 2000; 100(1-2):21-3. PubMed ID: 11109446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Mammography screening. One versus two views and independent double reading.
    Thurfjell E
    Acta Radiol; 1994 Jul; 35(4):345-50. PubMed ID: 8011383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study.
    Bernardi D; Macaskill P; Pellegrini M; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Tuttobene P; Luparia A; Houssami N
    Lancet Oncol; 2016 Aug; 17(8):1105-1113. PubMed ID: 27345635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.