Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 31

1.

Using automatically extracted information from mammography reports for decision-support.

Bozkurt S, Gimenez F, Burnside ES, Gulkesen KH, Rubin DL.

J Biomed Inform. 2016 Aug;62:224-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.07.001. Epub 2016 Jul 4.

2.

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Le MT, Mothersill CE, Seymour CB, McNeill FE.

Br J Radiol. 2016 Sep;89(1065):20160045. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20160045. Epub 2016 Jun 8. Review.

3.

Initiative to Improve Mammogram Interpretation.

Adcock KA.

Perm J. 2004 Spring;8(2):12-8. No abstract available.

4.

Characterizing the Mammography Technologist Workforce in North Carolina.

Henderson LM, Marsh MW, Benefield T, Pearsall E, Durham D, Schroeder BF, Bowling JM, Viglione CA, Yankaskas BC.

J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Dec;12(12 Pt B):1419-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2015.06.001.

5.

Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Symptomatic Breast Cancer Awareness despite a Recent Screen: The Role of Tumor Biology and Mammography Facility Characteristics.

Mortel M, Rauscher GH, Murphy AM, Hoskins K, Warnecke RB.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Oct;24(10):1599-606. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0305. Epub 2015 Jul 21.

6.

Number of mammography cases read per year is a strong predictor of sensitivity.

Suleiman WI, Lewis SJ, Georgian-Smith D, Evanoff MG, McEntee MF.

J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2014 Apr;1(1):015503. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.1.1.015503. Epub 2014 May 7.

7.

Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Kemp Jacobsen K, Abraham L, Buist DS, Hubbard RA, O'Meara ES, Sprague BL, Kerlikowske K, Vejborg I, Von Euler-Chelpin M, Njor SH.

Cancer Epidemiol. 2015 Aug;39(4):656-63. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.05.004. Epub 2015 May 23.

8.

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. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.013. Epub 2014 Nov 27.

9.

Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change.

Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B, Nelson P, Ransohoff DF, Welch HG, Hwang S, Berry DA, Kinzler KW, Black WC, Bissell M, Parnes H, Srivastava S.

Lancet Oncol. 2014 May;15(6):e234-42. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70598-9.

10.

Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.

O'Donoghue C, Eklund M, Ozanne EM, Esserman LJ.

Ann Intern Med. 2014 Feb 4;160(3):145. doi: 10.7326/M13-1217.

11.

Reducing false-positive biopsies: a pilot study to reduce benign biopsy rates for BI-RADS 4A/B assessments through testing risk stratification and new thresholds for intervention.

Flowers CI, O'Donoghue C, Moore D, Goss A, Kim D, Kim JH, Elias SG, Fridland J, Esserman LJ.

Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Jun;139(3):769-77. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2576-0. Epub 2013 Jun 14.

12.

Potentially missed detection with screening mammography: does the quality of radiologist's interpretation vary by patient socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage?

Rauscher GH, Khan JA, Berbaum ML, Conant EF.

Ann Epidemiol. 2013 Apr;23(4):210-4. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.01.006. Epub 2013 Mar 1.

13.

Effect of protocol-related variables and women's characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening.

Román R, Sala M, Salas D, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X; Cumulative False Positive Risk Group.

Ann Oncol. 2012 Jan;23(1):104-11. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr032. Epub 2011 Mar 23.

14.

Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.

Buist DS, Anderson ML, Haneuse SJ, Sickles EA, Smith RA, Carney PA, Taplin SH, Rosenberg RD, Geller BM, Onega TL, Monsees BS, Bassett LW, Yankaskas BC, Elmore JG, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL.

Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):72-84. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101698. Epub 2011 Feb 22.

15.

Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic imaging in symptomatic breast patients: team and individual performance.

Britton P, Warwick J, Wallis MG, O'Keeffe S, Taylor K, Sinnatamby R, Barter S, Gaskarth M, Duffy SW, Wishart GC.

Br J Radiol. 2012 Apr;85(1012):415-22. doi: 10.1259/bjr/32906819. Epub 2011 Jan 11.

16.

Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.

Halladay JR, Yankaskas BC, Bowling JM, Alexander C.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Sep;195(3):782-5. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.2955.

17.

The future of mammography: radiology residents' experiences, attitudes, and opinions.

Baxi SS, Snow JG, Liberman L, Elkin EB.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Jun;194(6):1680-6. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3735.

18.

Medico-legal claims against English radiologists: 1995-2006.

Halpin SF.

Br J Radiol. 2009 Dec;82(984):982-8. doi: 10.1259/bjr/61782960. Epub 2009 May 26.

19.

Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.

Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Groenewoud JH, van de Poll-Franse LV, Fracheboud J, Coebergh JW.

Br J Cancer. 2009 Mar 24;100(6):901-7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604954. Epub 2009 Mar 3.

20.

Agreement of the order of overall performance levels under different reading paradigms.

Gur D, Bandos AI, Klym AH, Cohen CS, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, Perrin RL, Poller WR, Shah R, Sumkin JH, Wallace LP, Rockette HE.

Acad Radiol. 2008 Dec;15(12):1567-73. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.07.011.

Supplemental Content

Support Center