Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States
about
Predictors of preoperative MRI for breast cancer: differences by data source.Reduction of false-positive recalls using a computerized mammographic image feature analysis schemeIntroduction of organised mammography screening in Tyrol: results following first year of complete rollout.Association between computed tissue density asymmetry in bilateral mammograms and near-term breast cancer riskFeasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.A new quantitative image analysis method for improving breast cancer diagnosis using DCE-MRI examinationsEducational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized controlled trialThe influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practiceEffect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performanceCriteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practiceUsing multiscale texture and density features for near-term breast cancer risk analysisAre radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategiesImproving the performance of computer-aided detection of subtle breast masses using an adaptive cueing method.Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy?Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.Bilateral mammographic density asymmetry and breast cancer risk: a preliminary assessment.An interactive system for computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses.Imaging-based screening: maximizing benefits and minimizing harms.Shuffling your way out of change blindness.Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway.Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria.Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.Prediction of near-term breast cancer risk based on bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry.Validation of a Medicare Claims-based Algorithm for Identifying Breast Cancers Detected at Screening Mammography.Factors associated with breast screening radiologists' annual mammogram reading volume in Italy.Breast cancer screening in England and the United States: a comparison of provision and utilisation.Facility Mammography Volume in Relation to Breast Cancer Screening Outcomes.Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?Increasing value by increasing volume: call for changes in US breast cancer screening practices.Assessment of global and local region-based bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry to predict short-term breast cancer risk.Performance of 4 years of population-based mammography screening for breast cancer combined with ultrasound in Tyrol / Austria.Improving the efficacy of mammography screening: the potential and challenge of developing new computer-aided detection approaches.Applying a new bilateral mammographic density segmentation method to improve accuracy of breast cancer risk prediction.Classification of normal screening mammograms is strongly influenced by perceived mammographic breast density.Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone
P2860
Q30948683-AE0F5C10-CD5A-49C0-86E4-CD970B00A07EQ33988820-132D965C-22D3-4321-8C3E-6FFEC1202288Q34005951-27F98763-DFE0-454A-BCCD-B9AB2683D1DAQ34053289-2FCE0678-1C54-4BF0-8C88-B73FD4E6D678Q34125368-FC96D52F-ECE7-4360-82DE-6DD2282D99C9Q34745015-1C583BB0-BAD8-4249-91B7-DE2E8593D8DBQ34770968-CE442C2B-B6D2-420B-95E2-49BD26B511B8Q35071440-2AFF5549-B40D-4484-AABF-95E747B2DF70Q35100880-308AACA3-26FB-4566-AB8B-867D284C4BD0Q35206455-061C9CDF-D47F-4745-9795-74319D1AD660Q35629889-BF8848EB-4F98-485A-B396-DADF9075C031Q35638384-142FDCB8-398C-4A45-AF40-7638C7F82422Q35742704-BDBB8718-1428-4A6E-BD6D-6C546034941CQ35818663-2A46ABAB-FCC1-44A0-B2B1-527C9A0298DAQ35848240-282A013A-CCF8-457D-9124-EE268C5395FCQ36082139-82FCDE40-9FF6-4DC2-A933-B1FFC55DA985Q36174684-02A9A66C-223F-43F3-BB97-758854260ED7Q36199030-35EF7DDC-D717-4A6C-964D-68E94300D006Q36247561-5897AE75-85FE-4EB6-BB9B-E7ED5CDC819EQ36366314-EBC5EBD3-77D2-4B85-883C-26C3F4589443Q36403333-3C374E75-4B97-4102-8E3A-557111A54DDCQ36727156-CEC9DDC1-A94A-42D4-BDC4-416F0CFFA935Q36733622-5EBA0872-052B-471B-8835-1E963CA9253CQ36785608-3BBDDB3A-F803-418E-8F5F-2221634DBD76Q37054183-BDA0D44F-4BEC-480D-8A26-1B203623BF1FQ37375608-C38C3CBA-649A-4826-9E21-673001C7C33AQ37396964-D5424B9B-D701-4B92-95A8-2CADA0F8FB05Q39873506-ACFF85C2-848F-4804-9859-1B58E80FBCD0Q40456279-70A371BE-7FC3-4646-B9BC-D058175B2CF9Q41490979-14C90410-39CD-4624-B42D-C1BDC843F3C0Q42869688-A311AC17-21CC-4DEC-B921-1F291600959BQ43466820-DDC16194-8552-4529-8DD5-23B9B7F11106Q47262696-09237A73-1F3A-48C1-B049-3A953F58F042Q47361332-9609A56F-8A23-4D71-A414-513B796A8796Q47671083-21C698F0-04C3-4AE0-AA67-E41D089D83F7Q47904870-3FD652D5-6D62-457F-BD29-820F484B6A72Q48031683-3A878CCA-194D-4546-87AE-08A5A42EC531Q53447386-0D1BEC04-AEC8-4674-AE91-C6CE41F7B727
P2860
Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States
description
2011 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2011 թուականի Փետրուարին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2011 թվականի փետրվարին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2011年の論文
@ja
2011年論文
@yue
2011年論文
@zh-hant
2011年論文
@zh-hk
2011年論文
@zh-mo
2011年論文
@zh-tw
2011年论文
@wuu
name
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@ast
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@en
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@nl
type
label
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@ast
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@en
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@nl
prefLabel
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@ast
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@en
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@nl
P2093
P2860
P356
P1433
P1476
Influence of annual interpreti ...... rformance in the United States
@en
P2093
Barbara S Monsees
Berta M Geller
Bonnie C Yankaskas
Diana L Miglioretti
Diana S M Buist
Edward A Sickles
Joann G Elmore
Karla Kerlikowske
Lawrence W Bassett
Melissa L Anderson
P2860
P356
10.1148/RADIOL.10101698
P407
P577
2011-02-22T00:00:00Z