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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9240718)

  • 1. Double reporting of screening mammograms.
    Matson M; Hibbert J; Field S
    Clin Radiol; 1997 Jul; 52(7):567. PubMed ID: 9240718
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
    Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Transition to digital mammography.
    Hall FM
    Radiology; 2012 Jan; 262(1):374; author reply 374. PubMed ID: 22190668
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mammography and the risks of engagement.
    Pentecost MJ
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2004 Nov; 1(11):797-9. PubMed ID: 17411707
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Re: "Mammography and the risks of engagement".
    Goldshein M
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2005 Jan; 2(1):93-4. PubMed ID: 17411771
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mammography screening: truth, lies, and controversy.
    Gøtzsche PC
    Lancet; 2012 Jul; 380(9838):218. PubMed ID: 22817975
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Missed and true interval and screen-detected breast cancers in a population based screening program.
    Hoff SR; Samset JH; Abrahamsen AL; Vigeland E; Klepp O; Hofvind S
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Apr; 18(4):454-60. PubMed ID: 21216632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Dose hysteria and concern about radiation exposure should not prevent women from undergoing life-saving mammography screening.
    Skaane P
    Acta Radiol; 2014 Dec; 55(10):1155-6. PubMed ID: 25398886
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.
    May DS; Lee NC; Nadel MR; Henson RM; Miller DS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):97-104. PubMed ID: 9423608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
    Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
    Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Use of Screening Mammography to Detect Occult Malignancy in Autologous Breast Reconstructions: A 15-year Experience.
    Noroozian M; Carlson LW; Savage JL; Jeffries DO; Joe AI; Neal CH; Patterson SK; Hadjiiski LM; Helvie MA
    Radiology; 2018 Oct; 289(1):39-48. PubMed ID: 30129903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. German mammography screening program: quality assurance.
    Blettner M; Zeissig SR
    Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2012 Nov; 109(46):779-80. PubMed ID: 23264825
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening.
    Roelofs AA; Karssemeijer N; Wedekind N; Beck C; van Woudenberg S; Snoeren PR; Hendriks JH; Rosselli del Turco M; Bjurstam N; Junkermann H; Beijerinck D; Séradour B; Evertsz CJ
    Radiology; 2007 Jan; 242(1):70-7. PubMed ID: 17185661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessing screening mammography utilization in an urban area.
    Allen B; Bastani R; Bazargan S; Leonard E
    J Natl Med Assoc; 2002 Jan; 94(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 11837354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography: the importance of the question and the critical numbers game.
    Brem RF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Nov; 189(5):1142-4. PubMed ID: 17954652
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. History repeats.
    Kopans DB
    Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):645; author reply 645-6. PubMed ID: 18227558
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Differentiation of breast cancers is missing.
    Weth G
    Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2013 Apr; 110(14):253. PubMed ID: 23616818
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. In reply.
    Heidinger O; Batzler WU; Weigel S; Heindel W; Hense HW
    Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2013 Apr; 110(14):253. PubMed ID: 23616819
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cancer detection and mammogram volume of radiologists in a population-based screening programme.
    Rickard M; Taylor R; Page A; Estoesta J
    Breast; 2006 Feb; 15(1):39-43. PubMed ID: 16005226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.
    Schell MJ; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Qaqish BF; Barlow WE; Rosenberg RD; Smith-Bindman R
    Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):681-9. PubMed ID: 17517927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.