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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8893641)

  • 1. Descriptive terms for mammographic abnormalities: observer variation in application. The Northern Region Breast Screening Radiology Audit Group.
    Simpson W; Neilson F; Kelly PJ
    Clin Radiol; 1996 Oct; 51(10):709-13. PubMed ID: 8893641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The American College of Radiology mammography lexicon: an initial attempt to standardize terminology.
    D'Orsi CJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Apr; 166(4):779-80. PubMed ID: 8610548
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS).
    Liberman L; Menell JH
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2002 May; 40(3):409-30, v. PubMed ID: 12117184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description.
    Baker JA; Kornguth PJ; Floyd CE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Apr; 166(4):773-8. PubMed ID: 8610547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The significance of spontaneous resolution of breast calcification.
    Seymour HR; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM
    Br J Radiol; 1999 Jan; 72(853):3-8. PubMed ID: 10341682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Spectrum of abnormal mammographic findings and their predictive value for malignancy in Singaporean women from a population screening trial.
    Sng KW; Ng EH; Ng FC; Tan PH; Low SC; Chiang G; Ho GH; Ng LT; Wilde C; Tan KP
    Ann Acad Med Singap; 2000 Jul; 29(4):457-62. PubMed ID: 11056775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Audit feedback on reading performance of screening mammograms: An international comparison.
    Hofvind S; Bennett RL; Brisson J; Lee W; Pelletier E; Flugelman A; Geller B
    J Med Screen; 2016 Sep; 23(3):150-9. PubMed ID: 26892191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [The technique and results of mammography].
    Friedrich M
    Radiologe; 1993 May; 33(5):243-59. PubMed ID: 8516435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Breast calcifications. The usefulness of a standardized system for the description and assessment of the mammographic findings to improve the positive predictive value].
    Perugini G; Bonzanini B; Valentino C
    Radiol Med; 1999 Nov; 98(5):347-51. PubMed ID: 10780213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Eliciting a terminology for mammographic calcifications.
    Alberdi E; Taylor P; Lee R; Fox J; Todd-Pokropek A
    Clin Radiol; 2002 Nov; 57(11):1007-13. PubMed ID: 12409112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications.
    Pijnappel RM; Peeters PH; Hendriks JH; Mali WP
    Br J Radiol; 2004 Apr; 77(916):312-4. PubMed ID: 15107321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Computer-assisted mammographic imaging.
    Boggis CR; Astley SM
    Breast Cancer Res; 2000; 2(6):392-5. PubMed ID: 11250731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Screening mammography interpretation test: more frequent mistakes.
    Gozzi G; Martinoli C; Conti GM; Ganzetti A; Bodini M; Fiorentino C; Marini UP; Santini D; Bacigalupo L
    Radiol Med; 2005 Mar; 109(3):268-79. PubMed ID: 15775896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.
    Chan HP; Helvie MA; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Adler DD; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Blane CE; Joynt LK; Wilson TE; Hadjiiski LM; Goodsitt MM
    Acad Radiol; 2001 Jun; 8(6):454-66. PubMed ID: 11394537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Mammographic appearances of mammary duct ectasia that mimic carcinoma in a screening programme.
    Sweeney DJ; Wylie EJ
    Australas Radiol; 1995 Feb; 39(1):18-23. PubMed ID: 7695522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Controlled single-blind clinical evaluation of low-dose mammographic screen--film systems.
    Sickles EA; Genant HK
    Radiology; 1979 Feb; 130(2):347-51. PubMed ID: 760148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group.
    Pisano ED; Cole EB; Major S; Zong S; Hemminger BM; Muller KE; Johnston RE; Walsh R; Conant E; Fajardo LL; Feig SA; Nishikawa RM; Yaffe MJ; Williams MB; Aylward SR
    Radiology; 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30. PubMed ID: 10966717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Mammographic and pathologic correlation of microcalcification in disease of the breast.
    Colbassani HJ; Feller WF; Cigtay OS; Chun B
    Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1982 Nov; 155(5):689-96. PubMed ID: 6291181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.