about
Empirical evidence that disease prevalence may affect the performance of diagnostic tests with an implicit threshold: a cross-sectional studyCross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening[Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].Optimizing the use of expert panel reference diagnoses in diagnostic studies of multidimensional syndromes.Do prevalence expectations affect patterns of visual search and decision-making in interpreting CT colonography endoluminal videos?A methodological framework to distinguish spectrum effects from spectrum biases and to assess diagnostic and screening test accuracy for patient populations: application to the Papanicolaou cervical cancer smear test.Prevalence of abnormal cases in an image bank affects the learning of radiograph interpretation.Is an ROC-type response truly always better than a binary response in observer performance studies?Assessing the effect of a true-positive recall case in screening mammography: does perceptual priming alter radiologists' performance?Examining diagnostic tests: an evidence-based perspective.Development of a diagnostic test set to assess agreement in breast pathology: practical application of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS).Effect of a patient's psychiatric history on physicians' estimation of probability of disease.Retrospective review of the drop in observer detection performance over time in lesion-enriched experimental studies.The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: Changing the confidence ratings.Essential features of Chiari II malformation in MR imaging: an interobserver reliability study--part 1Use of computer-aided detection (CAD) tools in screening mammography: a multidisciplinary investigation.Diagnosis, access and outcomes: Update of a systematic review of telemedicine services.The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound imagesSystematic review: bias in imaging studies - the effect of manipulating clinical context, recall bias and reporting intensity.Systematic review: emergency department bedside ultrasonography for diagnosing suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm.Impact of Different Study Populations on Reader Behavior and Performance Metrics: Initial ResultsA systematic review of context bias in invasion biologyRedefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database.A 'reluctant' critical review: 'Manual for evidence-based clinical practice (2015)'.Accuracy is in the eyes of the pathologist: The visual interpretive process and diagnostic accuracy with digital whole slide images.The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists' Medical Decision Making.Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example.Influence of being videotaped on the prevalence effect during visual search.Certain performance values arising from mammographic test set readings correlate well with clinical audit.Prenatal alcohol exposure patterns and alcohol-related birth defects and growth deficiencies: a prospective study.Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.MRI of the lumbar spine: comparison of 3D isotropic turbo spin-echo SPACE sequence versus conventional 2D sequences at 3.0 T.Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks.Can non-contrast-enhanced CT (NECT) triage patients suspected of having non-traumatic acute aortic syndromes (AAS)?
P2860
Q24594142-210F798D-4E61-47CE-A92A-C61AB1AFD0E7Q24684588-B120CFDE-8574-435B-B6F7-0C9C82124BEAQ30399086-E7AAE242-EB73-4D8B-8E8D-1193F7449662Q30591744-0F02AA61-C829-4917-8D0A-E3DB23A8EF65Q30747692-BF577CB0-18E9-404E-9F1A-F749EA6D30BFQ33320771-E5A92B26-B8D2-43E6-8DC3-0D0529601EE2Q33454453-610104D7-1BCF-43CC-9420-4F41A09C9FC0Q33797843-86BA2357-A60B-48A9-8706-26A867957934Q33823296-AB448F41-928E-444F-9FA3-04B4902EB35CQ34425794-068DE87F-7375-41AE-BB13-3BBD34731FCEQ34573768-F7BE613E-93C2-46BC-8598-8206F1E20A76Q34745068-0E389EB6-FEA7-4BA5-A7BA-581BE15C1F76Q35008133-813DEEB5-ABBD-4B82-B461-BFFF5393FEC6Q35585224-AE340BBA-7C8F-4A2A-9B5B-5CEB8100C63AQ36035676-5B33B882-3623-40C1-A417-1085F51D5556Q36139927-08EF0913-2F3E-4E3C-8F3A-92A876636858Q36600401-25D6C8B0-843A-40EF-86AF-250A10B86AFCQ37023831-2A117154-D0CF-4444-A48A-B33B6262ABDEQ37292379-1FC72885-1A2A-427E-9DEE-75B1500D91E2Q37940888-7540CC73-DD6F-4AD2-B4EF-A88EF0597F8EQ38081187-051CC927-91A4-4CB9-B93F-AB4D0CC17DF0Q38372108-EB4E520C-9B6A-448B-9BF2-8C4EEF818F00Q38619931-2448E445-AF4C-4488-9D6E-329464996CD1Q38661162-76578752-23FB-4DCB-A8E3-413C367CF1BAQ38685671-2359589E-32B0-4CA5-8B6C-BDBB49D820BCQ39087791-FD76FEBC-CB0A-4890-BF83-63095A66B497Q39870741-6A40AC46-AE5C-48E3-BEE7-D1304886FA30Q40128690-4AFE20EC-7278-4AC9-AA25-8B58BA0E3FACQ40347127-FCC8EA99-087E-4EB8-B081-2D47B2A5FD13Q41132131-86C1D43B-AAE3-4E36-8927-A1AEBA73EC64Q41934431-E28CB299-2B3C-408B-8BF0-FA6A7DEE017AQ42869688-3FB3C7A9-8C8C-4A89-9671-F6E3508FB7FCQ46496895-31E66EBC-F646-4E4A-9EE2-825A68A788FDQ51110322-5CD990FC-372E-4417-8B88-A23C62989A4BQ51969854-053A1371-9D47-4557-A452-2509BEE8AAE9Q53062656-B2777DE6-E739-4C9B-BB0F-B1AA875D1209
P2860
description
1996 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
1996年の論文
@ja
1996年学术文章
@wuu
1996年学术文章
@zh-cn
1996年学术文章
@zh-hans
1996年学术文章
@zh-my
1996年学术文章
@zh-sg
1996年學術文章
@yue
1996年學術文章
@zh
1996年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology.
@en
type
label
Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology.
@en
prefLabel
Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology.
@en
P1476
Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology.
@en
P2093
A R Feinstein
T K Egglin
P304
P356
10.1001/JAMA.1996.03540210060035
P407
P577
1996-12-01T00:00:00Z