183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8778532)
1. Statistical comparison of ROC curves from multiple readers.
Swaving M; van Houwelingen H; Ottes FP; Steerneman T
Med Decis Making; 1996; 16(2):143-52. PubMed ID: 8778532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Binary and multi-category ratings in a laboratory observer performance study: a comparison.
Gur D; Bandos AI; King JL; Klym AH; Cohen CS; Hakim CM; Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Perrin RL; Poller WR; Shah R; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Rockette HE
Med Phys; 2008 Oct; 35(10):4404-9. PubMed ID: 18975686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparative statistical properties of expected utility and area under the ROC curve for laboratory studies of observer performance in screening mammography.
Abbey CK; Gallas BD; Boone JM; Niklason LT; Hadjiiski LM; Sahiner B; Samuelson FW
Acad Radiol; 2014 Apr; 21(4):481-90. PubMed ID: 24594418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reader variability in mammography and its implications for expected utility over the population of readers and cases.
Wagner RF; Beam CA; Beiden SV
Med Decis Making; 2004; 24(6):561-72. PubMed ID: 15534338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Simultaneous inference for factorial multireader diagnostic trials.
Konietschke F; Aguayo RR; Staab W
Stat Med; 2018 Jan; 37(1):28-47. PubMed ID: 28980323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Is an ROC-type response truly always better than a binary response in observer performance studies?
Gur D; Bandos AI; Rockette HE; Zuley ML; Hakim CM; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Sumkin JH
Acad Radiol; 2010 May; 17(5):639-45. PubMed ID: 20236840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A permutation test for comparing ROC curves in multireader studies a multi-reader ROC, permutation test.
Bandos AI; Rockette HE; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2006 Apr; 13(4):414-20. PubMed ID: 16554220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of independent double readings and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for the diagnosis of breast calcifications.
Jiang Y; Nishikawa RM; Schmidt RA; Metz CE
Acad Radiol; 2006 Jan; 13(1):84-94. PubMed ID: 16399036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Celis V; Geniets C; Provost V; Pauwels H; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):765-75. PubMed ID: 19378737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Receiver operating characteristic analysis for intelligent medical systems--a new approach for finding confidence intervals.
Tilbury JB; Van Eetvelt PW; Garibaldi JM; Curnow JS; Ifeachor EC
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2000 Jul; 47(7):952-63. PubMed ID: 10916267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Investigation of optimal use of computer-aided detection systems: the role of the "machine" in decision making process.
Paquerault S; Hardy PT; Wersto N; Chen J; Smith RC
Acad Radiol; 2010 Sep; 17(9):1112-21. PubMed ID: 20605489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A marginal model approach for analysis of multi-reader multi-test receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data.
Song X; Zhou XH
Biostatistics; 2005 Apr; 6(2):303-12. PubMed ID: 15772108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
Wiebringhaus R; John V; Müller RD; Hirche H; Voss M; Callies R
Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A general regression methodology for ROC curve estimation.
Tosteson AN; Begg CB
Med Decis Making; 1988; 8(3):204-15. PubMed ID: 3294553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Estimating screening-mammography receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from stratified random samples of screening mammograms: a simulation study.
Zur RM; Pesce LL; Jiang Y
Acad Radiol; 2015 May; 22(5):580-90. PubMed ID: 25680522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Impact of magnification views on the characterization of microcalcifications in digital mammography.
Fallenberg EM; Dimitrijevic L; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Kettritz U; Poellinger A; Bick U; Winzer KJ; Engelken F; Renz DM
Rofo; 2014 Mar; 186(3):274-80. PubMed ID: 23999780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.
Li CR; Liao CT; Liu JP
Stat Med; 2008 Jan; 27(2):224-42. PubMed ID: 17139702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Multireader receiver operating characteristic studies: a comparison of study designs.
Obuchowski NA
Acad Radiol; 1995 Aug; 2(8):709-16. PubMed ID: 9419629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
