about
Screening mammography: test set data can reasonably describe actual clinical reporting.Breast mass characterization using 3-dimensional automated ultrasound as an adjunct to digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot study.Do prevalence expectations affect patterns of visual search and decision-making in interpreting CT colonography endoluminal videos?The ultra-rare-item effect: visual search for exceedingly rare items is highly susceptible to error.Prevalence of abnormal cases in an image bank affects the learning of radiograph interpretation.Malignant and benign breast masses on 3D US volumetric images: effect of computer-aided diagnosis on radiologist accuracyAssessing the effect of a true-positive recall case in screening mammography: does perceptual priming alter radiologists' performance?Detectability of simulated interstitial pneumonia on chest radiographs: comparison between irradiation side sampling indirect flat-panel detector and computed radiographyIf you don't find it often, you often don't find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screeningRetrospective review of the drop in observer detection performance over time in lesion-enriched experimental studies.Automated breast image classification using features from its discrete cosine transform.The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: Changing the confidence ratings.Radiological technologists' performance for the detection of malignant microcalcifications in digital mammograms without and with a computer-aided detection systemRadiographers' performance in chest X-ray interpretation: the Nigerian experienceUsing breast radiographers' reports as a second opinion for radiologists' readings of microcalcifications in digital mammographyDigital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the ArtBreast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy.Agreement of the order of overall performance levels under different reading paradigms.The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.Comparing areas under receiver operating characteristic curves: potential impact of the "Last" experimentally measured operating pointCan laptops be left inside passenger bags if motion imaging is used in X-ray security screening?Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound imagesInvestigating the link between radiologists' gaze, diagnostic decision, and image content.Systematic review: bias in imaging studies - the effect of manipulating clinical context, recall bias and reporting intensity.Impact of Different Study Populations on Reader Behavior and Performance Metrics: Initial ResultsWhen do I quit? The search termination problem in visual search.Analog Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) information can be more effective than binary marks.Correlation Between Screening Mammography Interpretive Performance on a Test Set and Performance in Clinical Practice.Evaluating imaging and computer-aided detection and diagnosis devices at the FDA.Estimating the relative utility of screening mammography.Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: trained observers miss rare targets, too.The falsifiability of Swets' ROC may bring consensus to search performance assessment.Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks.Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance.
P2860
Q30435855-7C6DB3FF-898C-4F07-8240-FA7B1EAC7150Q30457778-55797A84-3BF8-4E33-84C2-26F0E963C9D9Q30747692-A9A95528-D64D-438E-B6B5-DFAE936B2178Q33440284-0B7AA030-441C-4344-B8C7-6F0ADCA90B17Q33454453-668166D4-ED6D-46C0-B871-A25EE3FC65B2Q33568413-0EAFF83A-DB2E-45E9-9556-0441EDA27A81Q33823296-6350715C-3731-48A6-B7BE-9826D9AC481CQ33956263-C14F39E8-D2DC-436E-AADB-D8B566A75D9FQ34758748-D2C60F35-8654-47B5-88DA-6059231C6F6EQ35008133-C3A0F343-3F95-41D1-879C-9FFBD37D47D9Q35121782-0611DC74-2E57-41E3-9ADF-95CF9317FB33Q35585224-EEEA3BA0-765A-4AAE-82E0-C281ACAC4CC6Q35774900-1D9EEAE7-A5AE-4740-8A41-F99E5E29A960Q36235710-62A0A5B2-85B0-4A79-A306-8EFDC9A26B02Q36295240-4700DF58-6723-4F24-AD47-4206E72C6475Q36336971-2A8F5D9E-F2D3-41E6-AA7A-E164C16008D8Q36407086-8766636E-4048-4EED-A677-BC92E1F21F47Q37012724-E6D4265E-5066-4BA8-B352-76E833237FD7Q37023831-EAA3940D-8246-4C5E-8D9D-D81F40E92E9CQ37086762-EF98F2F5-A60E-42AC-83BD-81895E2EE164Q37235633-D34C4B8A-B4B7-4243-908E-96654C0CB5AFQ37292379-DCD880B9-21B7-4F89-A8F7-CCB1A28D0AC5Q37292731-BD8B4EB5-4A8C-4FFE-90C1-E374422C3F98Q37940888-B84B7ACD-3F67-405A-818F-D2248A88A209Q38372108-6FD36945-92F6-4688-B9D4-F2109A39105DQ38655119-08199168-0D68-4594-BFBE-73E0A8DEA7D2Q39121165-AA9C19F9-6E52-442A-84E2-5817D91809FAQ39334251-2307A6BB-E7C1-4D13-990B-328B8045F69EQ39656523-544306EB-721B-4ED8-BFAC-1E10DEF7F34DQ40084415-A0A7483E-F117-492E-B294-0DEBF7055E4DQ42063315-C9476B7E-7F5C-40F1-A453-4F4D09DB6642Q50073789-8C855A30-4522-4D82-BAAE-61C9F5A507F6Q51969854-E49CE462-88D5-4A11-B8C1-488087CF5034Q52758961-5ED28C30-669E-4F53-BDBD-3DBA87CDDC83
P2860
description
2003 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2003 թուականի Յուլիսին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2003 թվականի հուլիսին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2003年の論文
@ja
2003年論文
@yue
2003年論文
@zh-hant
2003年論文
@zh-hk
2003年論文
@zh-mo
2003年論文
@zh-tw
2003年论文
@wuu
name
Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.
@ast
Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.
@en
type
label
Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.
@ast
Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.
@en
prefLabel
Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.
@ast
Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.
@en
P2093
P1433
P1476
Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.
@en
P2093
Arye Blachar
Barry M McCook
Carl R Fuhrman
Cynthia A Britton
Derek R Armfield
F Leland Thaete
Giuseppe Brancatelli
Howard E Rockette
James V Ferris
P356
10.1148/RADIOL.2281020709
P407
P577
2003-07-01T00:00:00Z