Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 43

1.

Analysis of Participant Factors That Affect the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.

Kim YJ, Lee EH, Jun JK, Shin DR, Park YM, Kim HW, Kim Y, Kim KW, Lim HS, Park JS, Kim HJ, Jo HM; Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea (ABCS-K).

Korean J Radiol. 2017 Jul-Aug;18(4):624-631. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.624. Epub 2017 May 19.

2.

Lack of agreement between radiologists: implications for image-based model observers.

Lee J, Nishikawa RM, Reiser I, Zuley ML, Boone JM.

J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017 Apr;4(2):025502. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.4.2.025502. Epub 2017 May 3.

PMID:
28491908
3.

Performance of a subsidised mammographic screening programme in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country.

Lee M, Mariapun S, Rajaram N, Teo SH, Yip CH.

BMC Public Health. 2017 Jan 28;17(1):127. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4015-3.

4.

Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?

Elmore JG, Cook AJ, Bogart A, Carney PA, Geller BM, Taplin SH, Buist DS, Onega T, Lee CI, Miglioretti DL.

Clin Imaging. 2016 Nov - Dec;40(6):1096-1103. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.06.014. Epub 2016 Jul 1.

PMID:
27438069
5.

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.

PMID:
27388877
6.

A measure of association for ordered categorical data in population-based studies.

Nelson KP, Edwards D.

Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 May 16. pii: 0962280216643347. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
27184590
7.

Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening.

Román M, Castells X, Hofvind S, von Euler-Chelpin M.

Cancer Med. 2016 Jun;5(6):1298-306. doi: 10.1002/cam4.646. Epub 2016 Feb 25.

8.

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.

9.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB.

Radiology. 2015 Dec;277(3):663-84. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015141303.

10.

Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.

Jackson SL, Abraham L, Miglioretti DL, Buist DS, Kerlikowske K, Onega T, Carney PA, Sickles EA, Elmore JG.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Aug;205(2):456-63. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13672.

11.

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.

12.

Influence of study design in receiver operating characteristics studies: sequential versus independent reading.

Schalekamp S, van Ginneken B, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Karssemeijer N.

J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2014 Apr;1(1):015501. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.1.1.015501. Epub 2014 Apr 23.

13.

Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.

Gard CC, Aiello Bowles EJ, Miglioretti DL, Taplin SH, Rutter CM.

Breast J. 2015 Sep-Oct;21(5):481-9. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12443. Epub 2015 Jul 1.

14.

Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

McCarthy AM, Yamartino P, Yang J, Bristol M, Conant EF, Armstrong K.

Med Care. 2015 Aug;53(8):673-8. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000393.

15.

Imaging-based screening: maximizing benefits and minimizing harms.

Germino JC, Elmore JG, Carlos RC, Lee CI.

Clin Imaging. 2016 Mar-Apr;40(2):339-43. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.06.003. Epub 2015 Jun 12. Review.

16.

Measures of agreement between many raters for ordinal classifications.

Nelson KP, Edwards D.

Stat Med. 2015 Oct 15;34(23):3116-32. doi: 10.1002/sim.6546. Epub 2015 Jun 21.

17.

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.

18.

Classification accuracy of claims-based methods for identifying providers failing to meet performance targets.

Hubbard RA, Benjamin-Johnson R, Onega T, Smith-Bindman R, Zhu W, Fenton JJ.

Stat Med. 2015 Jan 15;34(1):93-105. doi: 10.1002/sim.6318. Epub 2014 Oct 10.

19.

Computerized detection of noncalcified plaques in coronary CT angiography: evaluation of topological soft gradient prescreening method and luminal analysis.

Wei J, Zhou C, Chan HP, Chughtai A, Agarwal P, Kuriakose J, Hadjiiski L, Patel S, Kazerooni E.

Med Phys. 2014 Aug;41(8):081901. doi: 10.1118/1.4885958.

20.

Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

Buist DS, Anderson ML, Smith RA, Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Monsees BS, Sickles EA, Taplin SH, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Onega TL.

Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):351-64. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132806. Epub 2014 Jun 24.

Supplemental Content

Support Center