| scholarly article | Q13442814 |
| P50 | author | Stephen H Taplin | Q114358491 |
| Barbara S Monsees | Q114563143 | ||
| Joann Elmore | Q38242249 | ||
| Tracy Onega | Q87975685 | ||
| Diana Miglioretti | Q88168881 | ||
| Patricia A Carney | Q88230718 | ||
| Sebastien Haneuse | Q88323638 | ||
| Diana Buist | Q91924352 | ||
| Karla Kerlikowske | Q92299671 | ||
| Berta M. Geller | Q110141281 | ||
| Bonnie C. Yankaskas | Q110141734 | ||
| Edward A Sickles | Q110677888 | ||
| Lawrence Wayne Bassett | Q112392001 | ||
| P2093 | author name string | Melissa L Anderson | |
| Robert A Smith | |||
| Robert D Rosenberg | |||
| P2860 | cites work | Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography | Q33807163 |
| Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004. | Q33964312 | ||
| The visibility of cancer on previous mammograms in retrospective review. | Q34132450 | ||
| Interval cancer peer review in East Anglia: implications for monitoring doctors as well as the NHS breast screening programme | Q34132455 | ||
| Radiological review of incidence breast cancers | Q34153972 | ||
| Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection | Q34198697 | ||
| Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists | Q35126323 | ||
| International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs | Q35136040 | ||
| Performance benchmarks for screening mammography | Q36600843 | ||
| Provider's volume and quality of breast cancer detection and treatment | Q36691214 | ||
| European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document | Q37007574 | ||
| Statistical approaches for modeling radiologists' interpretive performance | Q37122048 | ||
| Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway | Q37288821 | ||
| Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy | Q37450161 | ||
| Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database | Q39453537 | ||
| Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom | Q42611463 | ||
| Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography | Q46458560 | ||
| Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy | Q46496895 | ||
| Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships | Q46506552 | ||
| The impact of alternative practices on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States | Q46880143 | ||
| Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. | Q50659712 | ||
| The periodic health examination provided to asymptomatic older women: an assessment using standardized patients | Q70763257 | ||
| Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation | Q73014428 | ||
| 1998 MQSA (Mammography Quality Standards Act) final rule released. American College of Radiology | Q77168637 | ||
| Evaluating quality in small-volume hospitals | Q81508579 | ||
| P433 | issue | 1 | |
| P407 | language of work or name | English | Q1860 |
| P921 | main subject | United States of America | Q30 |
| mammography | Q324634 | ||
| P304 | page(s) | 72-84 | |
| P577 | publication date | 2011-02-22 | |
| P1433 | published in | Radiology | Q3285690 |
| P1476 | title | Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States | |
| P478 | volume | 259 |
| Q34745015 | A new quantitative image analysis method for improving breast cancer diagnosis using DCE-MRI examinations |
| Q36247561 | An interactive system for computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses |
| Q35818663 | Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategies |
| Q47904870 | Applying a new bilateral mammographic density segmentation method to improve accuracy of breast cancer risk prediction |
| Q35742704 | Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations? |
| Q47262696 | Assessment of global and local region-based bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry to predict short-term breast cancer risk |
| Q34053289 | Association between computed tissue density asymmetry in bilateral mammograms and near-term breast cancer risk |
| Q92093197 | Association of volume of self-directed versus assigned interpretive work with diagnostic performance of radiologists: an observational study |
| Q36199030 | Bilateral mammographic density asymmetry and breast cancer risk: a preliminary assessment |
| Q40456279 | Breast cancer screening in England and the United States: a comparison of provision and utilisation. |
| Q48031683 | Classification of normal screening mammograms is strongly influenced by perceived mammographic breast density |
| Q37054183 | Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study |
| Q35206455 | Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures |
| Q90655363 | Development and Assessment of a New Global Mammographic Image Feature Analysis Scheme to Predict Likelihood of Malignant Cases |
| Q36785608 | Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria |
| Q91924361 | Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve |
| Q34770968 | Educational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized controlled trial |
| Q35100880 | Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance |
| Q53447386 | Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone |
| Q41490979 | Facility Mammography Volume in Relation to Breast Cancer Screening Outcomes |
| Q36174684 | Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women |
| Q39873506 | Factors associated with breast screening radiologists' annual mammogram reading volume in Italy. |
| Q34125368 | Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography |
| Q36366314 | Imaging-based screening: maximizing benefits and minimizing harms. |
| Q47671083 | Improving the efficacy of mammography screening: the potential and challenge of developing new computer-aided detection approaches |
| Q35848240 | Improving the performance of computer-aided detection of subtle breast masses using an adaptive cueing method |
| Q43466820 | Increasing value by increasing volume: call for changes in US breast cancer screening practices |
| Q34005951 | Introduction of organised mammography screening in Tyrol: results following first year of complete rollout |
| Q86204158 | Is 20% of a loaf enough? |
| Q36082139 | Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy? |
| Q35629889 | Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice |
| Q36733622 | Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms |
| Q47361332 | Performance of 4 years of population-based mammography screening for breast cancer combined with ultrasound in Tyrol / Austria |
| Q37375608 | Prediction of near-term breast cancer risk based on bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry |
| Q30948683 | Predictors of preoperative MRI for breast cancer: differences by data source |
| Q42869688 | Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related? |
| Q33988820 | Reduction of false-positive recalls using a computerized mammographic image feature analysis scheme |
| Q36727156 | Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway |
| Q36403333 | Shuffling your way out of change blindness |
| Q35071440 | The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice |
| Q35638384 | Using multiscale texture and density features for near-term breast cancer risk analysis |
| Q37396964 | Validation of a Medicare Claims-based Algorithm for Identifying Breast Cancers Detected at Screening Mammography |
| Q87239610 | Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study |
Search more.