Literature DB >> 16381074

Examining accuracy of screening mammography using an event order model.

Prashni Paliwal1, Alan E Gelfand, Linn Abraham, William Barlow, Joann G Elmore.   

Abstract

Screening mammography is a widely used method for breast cancer detection. For each mammogram we propose a performance model based on order of outcomes. That is, we envision an initial assessment, a follow up assessment if the initial one is positive and, eventually, a determination of whether cancer was present or not. A model can be built at each stage reflecting effects due to patient characteristics, to the facility where mammogram was performed and to the radiologist reading the mammogram. Since assessment is not perfectly associated with outcome, familiar rates of agreement and disagreement are of interest. These rates can be investigated at various levels of risk factors of interest. The approach is illustrated with screening mammography data from the Group Health Cooperative in Seattle, WA. A Bayesian framework is adopted for inference and an analysis of the data set is presented. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16381074      PMCID: PMC3422573          DOI: 10.1002/sim.2220

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  13 in total

Review 1.  Estrogen and the risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  M Clemons; P Goss
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-01-25       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study.

Authors:  G Ciccone; P Vineis; A Frigerio; N Segnan
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 9.162

5.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.

Authors:  C A Beam; P M Layde; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-22

6.  The role of the reference radiologist. Estimates of inter-observer agreement and potential delay in cancer detection in the national breast screening study.

Authors:  C J Baines; D V McFarlane; A B Miller
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  C L Christiansen; F Wang; M B Barton; W Kreuter; J G Elmore; A E Gelfand; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.

Authors:  J G Elmore; C K Wells; C H Lee; D H Howard; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Inter-observer variability in the interpretation of mammograms.

Authors:  P Vineis; G Sinistrero; A Temporelli; L Azzoni; A Bigo; P Burke; G Ciccone; F Fasciano; R Ferraris; A Frigerio
Journal:  Tumori       Date:  1988-06-30
View more
  3 in total

1.  Joint modeling of sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  Gavino Puggioni; Alan E Gelfand; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 2.373

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

Authors:  Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography.

Authors:  D B Woodard; A E Gelfand; W E Barlow; J G Elmore
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.