Literature DB >> 32053060

Consensus Reads: The More Sets of Eyes Interpreting a Mammogram, the Better for Women.

Solveig Hofvind1, Christoph I Lee1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2020        PMID： 32053060      PMCID： PMC7104699          DOI： 10.1148/radiol.2020192746

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN： 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


× No keyword cloud information.
  9 in total

Review 1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Angela M P Coolen; Joost R C Lameijer; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W J Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Audit feedback on reading performance of screening mammograms: An international comparison.

Authors:  S Hofvind; R L Bennett; J Brisson; W Lee; E Pelletier; A Flugelman; B Geller
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 4.  Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Krzysztof J Geras; Ritse M Mann; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Per Skaane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Consensus Review of Discordant Imaging Findings after the Introduction of Digital Screening Mammography: Irish National Breast Cancer Screening Program Experience.

Authors:  Nuala A Healy; Angela O'Brien; Mark Knox; Gormlaith Hargaden; Clare Smith; Helen Fenlon; Michelle McNicholas; Niall Phelan; Fidelema Flanagan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Strategies for Decreasing Screening Mammography Recall Rates While Maintaining Performance Metrics.

Authors:  Lisa A Mullen; Babita Panigrahi; Jacqueline Hollada; Benita Panigrahi; Eniola T Falomo; Susan C Harvey
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-07-29       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Can we reduce the workload of mammographic screening by automatic identification of normal exams with artificial intelligence? A feasibility study.

Authors:  Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz; Kristina Lång; Albert Gubern-Merida; Jonas Teuwen; Mireille Broeders; Gisella Gennaro; Paola Clauser; Thomas H Helbich; Margarita Chevalier; Thomas Mertelmeier; Matthew G Wallis; Ingvar Andersson; Sophia Zackrisson; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Ritse M Mann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Pathways to breast cancer screening artificial intelligence algorithm validation.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Nehmat Houssami; Joann G Elmore; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2019-09-09       Impact factor: 4.380
  9 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Organization of Pediatric Echocardiography Laboratories: Impact of Sonographers on Clinical, Academic, and Financial Performance.

Authors:  Nick Arbic; Maelys Venet; Xavier Iriart; Andreea Dragulescu; Jean-Benoit Thambo; Mark K Friedberg; Vitor Guerra; Conall Thomas Morgan; Luc Mertens; Olivier Villemain
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 3.569
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.