FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2014379348> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2014379348 endingPage "316" @default.
• W2014379348 startingPage "311" @default.
• W2014379348 abstract "HomeRadiologyVol. 255, No. 2 PreviousNext REVIEWS AND COMMENTARYEDITORIALMore Mammography Muddle: Emotions, Politics, Science, Costs, and PolarizationLeonard Berlin , Ferris M. HallLeonard Berlin , Ferris M. HallAuthor Affiliations1From the Department of Radiology, Rush Medical College, Chicago, Ill (L.B.); Department of Radiology, NorthShore University HealthSystem–Skokie Hospital, Skokie, Ill (L.B.); and Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215 (F.M.H.).Address correspondence to the authors (e-mails: [email protected] and [email protected]).Leonard Berlin Ferris M. HallPublished Online:Apr 8 2010https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100056MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In AbstractControversies regarding medical screening and many other cost-benefit health care decisions are increasingly societal issues rather than purely scientific ones, and therefore, open-minded public discussion and education should be welcome.References1 US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):716–726, W-236. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2 Kolata G. Mammogram debate took group off guard. New York Times. November 20, 2009:A22. Google Scholar3 Smith S. Science, fear vie in fight over breast screening. Boston Globe. December 28, 2009:A1. Google Scholar4 Stein R. In wake of mammography guidelines, U.S. health task force faces new scrutiny. Washington Post. December 20, 2009:A03. Google Scholar5 USPSTF mammography recommendations will result in countless unnecessary breast cancer deaths each year. ACR News Web site. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/NewsPublications/FeaturedCategories/CurrentHealthCareNews/More/USPSTFMammoRecs.aspx. Published November 16, 2009. Accessed February 26, 2010. Google Scholar6 Detailed ACR statement on ill advised and dangerous USPSTF mammography recommendations. ACR News Web site. http://www.acr.org/MainMenuCategories/media_room/FeaturedCategories/PressReleases/UPSTFDetails.aspx. Published November 18, 2009. Accessed December 30, 2009. Google Scholar7 Clark C. Radiology groups: recommend mammogram guidelines will increase breast cancer deaths. HealthLeaders Media Web site. http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/PHY-242228/Radiology-Groups-Recommended-Mammogram-Guidelines-Will-Increase-Breast-Cancer-Deaths.html. Published November 17, 2009. Accessed December 30, 2009. Google Scholar8 A breast cancer preview. Wall Street Journal. November 19, 2009:A20. Google Scholar9 Response to the recent US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for mammography. Mass Gen Hosp: Radiol Rounds [newsletter]. 2009;7(12). Google Scholar10 Graham J. Mammogram guidelines are sparking a firestorm. Chicago Tribune. 2009;1:4. Google Scholar11 Cepeda EJ. New breast cancer screening guide will hurt women. Chicago Sun-Times. November 23, 2009:23. Google Scholar12 Milbank D. Feeling farther from the finish. Washington Post Web site. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112303145.html. Published November 24, 2009. Accessed February 26, 2010. Google Scholar13 Adams JU. Getting to the facts in the debate on mammograms. Los Angeles Times Web site. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/23/health/la-he-closer23-2009nov23. Published November 23, 2009. Accessed January 25, 2010. Google Scholar14 Dickersin K. Understanding the new mammography guidelines. Washington Post Web site. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112301801.html. Published November 23, 2009. Accessed January 25, 2010. Google Scholar15 Crewdson J. Rethinking the mammogram guidelines. Atlantic Web site. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911u/mammograms. Published November 19, 2009. Accessed December 30, 2009. Google Scholar16 Szabo L. With cancer screenings, ‘more is not always better.’ USA Today. November 30, 2009:8D. Google Scholar17 Maizes V. Controversial new mammography recommendations make sense. Arizona Daily Star Web site. http://www.azstarnet.com/news/opinion/article_397fd923-c0a6-555a-a454-6330e35325a3.html. Published December 10, 2009. Accessed January 25, 2010. Google Scholar18 Paulos JA. Mammogram math, why evidence-based medicine is actually right and scary. New York Times Sunday Magazine. December 13, 2009:19–20. Google Scholar19 Boodman SG. The risks benefits of cancer screenings. AARP Bull 2010;51(1):14–15. Google Scholar20 Partridge AH, Winer EP. On mammography: more agreement than disagreement. N Engl J Med 2009;361(26):2499–2501. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar21 Truog RD. Screening mammography and the “r” word. N Engl J Med 2009;361(26):2501–2503. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar22 Good LB. Breast cancer screening USPSTF update: an interview with Miriam Alexander, MD, MPH, ACPM president-elect. Medscape Internal Medicine Web site. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/714497. Published January 6, 2010. Accessed January 25, 2010. Google Scholar23 Woolf SH. The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2010;303(2):162–163. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar24 Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs. JAMA 2010;303(2):164–165. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar25 Murphy AM. Mammography screening for breast cancer: a view from 2 worlds. JAMA 2010;303(2):166–167. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar26 DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. US Preventive Services Task Force and breast cancer screening. JAMA 2010;303(2):172–173. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar27 Liberals and mammography. Wall Street Journal. November 24, 2009:A22. Google Scholar28 Sack K, Kolata G. Breast cancer screening policy won’t change, U.S. officials say. New York Times. November 19, 2009:1. Google Scholar29 Lawmakers call for review of new breast exam recommendations. ACR Daily News Scan Web site. http://mailview.custombriefings.com/mailview.aspx?m=2009112501acrad&r=4650022-f6f8. Published November 25, 2009. Accessed February 26, 2010. Google Scholar30 Stein R, Eggen D. White House backs off cancer test guidelines. Washington Post Web site. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111802545.html. Published November 19, 2009Accessed January 25, 2010. Google Scholar31 Coburn T. The health bill is scary. Wall Street Journal. December 17, 2009:A27. Google Scholar32 Lawmakers criticize task force over mammogram recommendations. ACR Daily News Scan Web site. http://weinsteinimaging.com/userfiles/Lawmakers%20Criticize%20Task%20Force%20Over%20Mammogram%20Recommendations%5B1%5D.pdf. Published December 3, 2009. Accessed March 2, 2010. Google Scholar33 Eggen D, Stein R.. Mammogram debate has long past, hearings in future. Chicago Tribune. November 18, 200913. Google Scholar34 Lowes R. Senate guarantees coverage of mammograms, other screenings in healthcare reform bill. Medscape Medical News Web site. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/713342. Published December 9, 2009. Accessed January 25, 2010. Google Scholar35 Schmid RE. Get mammograms at 40, health secretary advises. Chicago Tribune. November 19, 2009:17. Google Scholar36 Park A, Pickert K.. The mammogram melee. Time. December 2, 2009:41–42. Medline, Google Scholar37 Berlin L. The missed breast cancer: perceptions and realities. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173(5):1161–1167. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar38 Berlin L. Dot size, lead time, fallibility, and impact on survival: continuing controversies in mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(5):1123–1130. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar39 Berlin L. Disagreement continues to dog screening mammography. Diagn Imaging 2009;31(4):21–22, 24, 38. Google Scholar40 Klabunde CN, Ballard-Barbash R. for the International Breast Cancer Screening Network. Evaluating population-based screening mammography programs internationally. Semin Breast Dis 2007;10(2):102–107. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar41 Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al.. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003;290(16):2129–2137. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar42 Hall FM. Computer-aided mammography screening [letter]. N Engl J Med 2009;360(8):836. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar43 Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 2009;302(15):1685–1692. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar44 Hall FM. Identification, biopsy, and treatment of poorly understood premalignant, in situ, and indolent low-grade cancers: are we becoming victims of our own success? Radiology 2010;254(3):655–659. Link, Google Scholar45 Peres J. Mammography screening: after the storm, calls for more personalized approaches. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102(1):9–11. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar46 Hall FM. The rise and impending decline of screening mammography. Radiology 2008;247(3):597–601. Link, Google Scholar47 Kerlikowske K. Evidence-based breast cancer prevention: the importance of individual risk. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):750–752. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar48 Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al.. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):738–747. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar49 Berg WA. Benefits of screening mammography. JAMA 2010;303(2):168–169. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar50 Kopans DB. Why the critics of screening mammography are wrong. Diagn Imaging 2009;31(12):18–24. Google Scholar51 Keen JD. Breast cancer: radiologists need to do more reading [letter]. Wall Street Journal. December 2, 2009:A24. Google Scholar52 Lowry F. Top mammography experts voice outrage over new breast cancer screening recommendations. Medscape Medical News Web site. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/713352. Published December 9, 2009. Accessed January 25, 2010. Google Scholar53 Radiological Society of North America. Backlash continues against breast cancer screening guidelines. RSNA News [newsletter]. 2010;20(1):5–6. Google Scholar54 Thrall JH. US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for screening mammography: evidence-based medicine or the death of science? J Am Coll Radiol 2010;7(1):2–4. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar55 Speaking out on the new mammography guidelines. ARRS InPractice Insight Web site. http://www.arrs.org/templates/templateip_1col.aspx?id=1396. Published January 2010. Accessed March 2, 2010. Google Scholar56 Javitt MC, Hendrick RE. Revealing Oz behind the curtain: USPSTF screening mammography guidelines and the hot air balloon. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(2):289–290. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar57 Mundy A. New breast screening limits face reversal. Wall Street Journal. January 12, 2010:A1. Google Scholar58 Sawaya GF. Cervical-cancer screening: new guidelines and the balance between benefits and harms. N Engl J Med 2009;361(26):2503–2505. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar59 Brawley OW. Information over exaggeration. US News World Rep 2009;146(11):24. Medline, Google Scholar60 Hall FM. The radiology report of the future. Radiology 2009;251(2):313–316. Link, Google Scholar61 The editors. When evidence collides with anecdote, politics, and emotion: breast cancer screening [editorial]. Ann Intern Med 2010. http://www.annals.org/content/early/2010/02/12/0003-4819-152-8-201004200-00210.full. Published February 15, 2010. Accessed February 27, 2010. Google Scholar62 Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 2009;339:b2587. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar63 Ciatto S. The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution. BMC Womens Health 2009;9:34. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived January 5, 2010; final version accepted February 3.Published online: Apr 8 2010Published in print: May 2010 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByA multi‐stage fusion framework to classify breast lesions using deep learning and radiomics features computed from four‐view mammogramsMeredith A.Jones, NegarSadeghipour, XuxinChen, WaridIslam, BinZheng2023 | Medical PhysicsPrediction of Short-Term Breast Cancer Risk with Fusion of CC- and MLO-Based Risk Models in Four-View MammogramsYaneLi, WeiYuan, MingFan, BinZheng, LihuaLi2022 | Journal of Digital Imaging, Vol. 35, No. 4Improving Performance of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction by Incorporating Optical Density Image Feature AnalysisShijuYan, YunzhiWang, FaranakAghaei, YuchenQiu, BinZheng2022 | Academic Radiology, Vol. 29Applying artificial intelligence technology to assist with breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis predictionMeredith A.Jones, WaridIslam, RozwatFaiz, XuxinChen, BinZheng2022 | Frontiers in Oncology, Vol. 12Improving Performance of Breast Lesion Classification Using a ResNet50 Model Optimized with a Novel Attention MechanismWaridIslam, MeredithJones, RowzatFaiz, NegarSadeghipour, YuchenQiu, BinZheng2022 | Tomography, Vol. 8, No. 5Financial incentives for breast cancer screening undermine informed choiceTheodoreBartholomew, MirelaColleoni, HaraldSchmidt2022 | BMJCorrecting a decade of negative news about mammographyElaineSchattner2020 | Clinical Imaging, Vol. 60, No. 2Assessment of global and local region-based bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry to predict short-term breast cancer riskYaneLi, MingFan, HuCheng, PengZhang, BinZheng, LihuaLi2018 | Physics in Medicine & Biology, Vol. 63, No. 2Prediction of breast cancer risk using a machine learning approach embedded with a locality preserving projection algorithmMortezaHeidari, Abolfazl ZargariKhuzani, Alan BHollingsworth, GopichandhDanala, SeyedehnafisehMirniaharikandehei, YuchenQiu, HongLiu, BinZheng2018 | Physics in Medicine & Biology, Vol. 63, No. 3Applying a new computer-aided detection scheme generated imaging marker to predict short-term breast cancer riskSeyedehnafisehMirniaharikandehei, Alan BHollingsworth, BhavikaPatel, MortezaHeidari, HongLiu, BinZheng2018 | Physics in Medicine & Biology, Vol. 63, No. 10Continued Avoidance of USPSTF Guidelines for Screening MammographyArchieBleyer, John D.Keen2018 | Journal of Women's Health, Vol. 27, No. 7Medical Imaging 2018: Computer-Aided DiagnosisFaranakAghaei, SeyedehnafisehMirniaharikandehei, Alan B.Hollingsworth, Rebecca G.Stoug, MelaniePearce, HongLiu, BinZheng, KensakuMori, NicholasPetrick2018Medical Imaging 2018: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare, Research, and ApplicationsMortezaHeidari, AbolfazlZargari Khuzani, GopichandhDanala, SeyedehnafisehMirniaharikandehei, WeiQian, BinZheng, JianguoZhang, Po-HaoChen2018Medical Imaging 2018: Computer-Aided DiagnosisFaranakAghaei, GopichandhDanala, YunzhiWang, AliZarafshani, HongLiu, BinZheng, WeiQian, KensakuMori, NicholasPetrick2018Anticipation and MedicineLarryBurk2017Medical Imaging 2017: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare, Research, and ApplicationsTessa S.Cook, JianguoZhang, YaneLi, MingFan, LihuaLi, BinZheng2017 | , Vol. 10138Impact of screening mammography on breast cancer mortalityArchieBleyer, CorneliaBaines, Anthony B.Miller2016 | International Journal of Cancer, Vol. 138, No. 8Lessons Learned From Reviewing Breast Imaging Malpractice CasesElizabeth KaganArleo, MarwaSaleh, RuthRosenblatt2016 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 13, No. 11Association Between Changes in Mammographic Image Features and Risk for Near-Term Breast Cancer DevelopmentMaxineTan, BinZheng, Joseph K.Leader, DavidGur2016 | IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Vol. 35, No. 7Medical Imaging 2016: Computer-Aided DiagnosisGeorgia D.Tourassi, Samuel G.Armato, FaranakAghaei, MaxineTan, Alan B.Hollingsworth, BinZheng, SamuelCheng2016 | , Vol. 9785Medical Imaging 2016: Physics of Medical ImagingDespinaKontos, Thomas G.Flohr, Joseph Y.Lo, SreeramDhurjaty, YuchenQiu, MaxineTan, WeiQian, BinZheng2016 | , Vol. 9783Are Physicians Influenced by Their Own Specialty Society's Guidelines Regarding Mammography Screening? An Analysis of Nationally Representative DataJohn R.Scheel, Daniel S.Hippe, Linda E.Chen, Diana L.Lam, Janie M.Lee, Joann G.Elmore, HabibRahbar, Savannah C.Partridge, Christoph I.Lee2016 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 207, No. 5Assessment of a Four-View Mammographic Image Feature Based Fusion Model to Predict Near-Term Breast Cancer RiskMaxineTan, JiantaoPu, SamuelCheng, HongLiu, BinZheng2015 | Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 43, No. 10Medical Imaging 2015: Computer-Aided DiagnosisLubomir M.Hadjiiski, Georgia D.Tourassi, BinZheng, WeiQian, LihuaLi, JiantaoPu, YanKang, FlemingLure, MaxineTan, YuchenQiu2015 | , Vol. 9414Medical Imaging 2015: Computer-Aided DiagnosisLubomir M.Hadjiiski, Georgia D.Tourassi, Rohith ReddyGundreddy, MaxineTan, YuchenQui, BinZheng2015 | , Vol. 9414Using multiscale texture and density features for near-term breast cancer risk analysisWenqingSun, Tzu-Liang BillTseng, WeiQian, JianyingZhang, Edward C.Saltzstein, BinZheng, FlemingLure, HuiYu, ShiZhou2015 | Medical Physics, Vol. 42, No. 6Part1Assessment of performance and reproducibility of applying a content-based image retrieval scheme for classification of breast lesionsRohith ReddyGundreddy, MaxineTan, YuchenQiu, SamuelCheng, HongLiu, BinZheng2015 | Medical Physics, Vol. 42, No. 7Computer‐aided breast MR image feature analysis for prediction of tumor response to chemotherapyFaranakAghaei, MaxineTan, Alan B.Hollingsworth, WeiQian, HongLiu, BinZheng2015 | Medical Physics, Vol. 42, No. 11Improving the efficacy of mammography screening: the potential and challenge of developing new computer-aided detection approachesWeiQian, WenqingSun, BinZheng2015 | Expert Review of Medical Devices, Vol. 12, No. 5Screening Mammography Guidelines: An Alternative Proactive ApproachFerris M. Hall, 24 November 2014 | Radiology, Vol. 273, No. 3Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: A conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population levelTracyOnega, Elisabeth F.Beaber, Brian L.Sprague, William E.Barlow, Jennifer S.Haas, Anna N.A.Tosteson, MitchellD. Schnall, KatrinaArmstrong, Marilyn M.Schapira, BertaGeller, Donald L.Weaver, Emily F.Conant2014 | Cancer, Vol. 120, No. 19Prediction of near-term risk of developing breast cancer using computerized features from bilateral mammogramsWenqingSun, BinZheng, FlemingLure, TeresaWu, JianyingZhang, Benjamin Y.Wang, Edward C.Saltzstein, WeiQian2014 | Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, Vol. 38, No. 5Point: Mammography, Breast Cancer, and Overdiagnosis: The Truth Versus the Whole Truth Versus Nothing but the TruthLeonardBerlin2014 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 11, No. 7Lessons Learned From Reviewing Breast Imaging Malpractice CasesElizabeth KaganArleo, MarwaSaleh, RuthRosenblatt2014 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 11, No. 12Association between Computed Tissue Density Asymmetry in Bilateral Mammograms and Near-term Breast Cancer RiskBinZheng, MaxineTan, PandiyarajanRamalingam, DavidGur2014 | The Breast Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3Debates, Dialectic, and RhetoricSaurabhJha2013 | Academic Radiology, Vol. 20, No. 6Prediction of Near-term Breast Cancer Risk Based on Bilateral Mammographic Feature AsymmetryMaxineTan, BinZheng, PandiyarajanRamalingam, DavidGur2013 | Academic Radiology, Vol. 20, No. 12The Mammography Controversy: Full Steam Ahead Versus Reasonable CautionCornelia J.Baines2013 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 200, No. 1Bilateral mammographic density asymmetry and breast cancer risk: A preliminary assessmentBinZheng, Jules H.Sumkin, Margarita L.Zuley, XingweiWang, Amy H.Klym, DavidGur2012 | European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 81, No. 11Building Better ModelsJeanneMandelblatt, ClydeSchechter, DavidLevy, AnnZauber, YaojenChang, RuthEtzioni2012 | Medical Decision Making, Vol. 32, No. 5Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40–49 and 50+Marc TKiviniemi, Jennifer LHay2012 | BMC Public Health, Vol. 12, No. 1Breast Cancer Screening with MammographyBradford R.Hirsch, Gary H.Lyman2011 | Current Oncology Reports, Vol. 13, No. 1Aspectos éticos sobre el límite de edad de los cribados de cáncerAndreuSegura2011 | FMC - Formación Médica Continuada en Atención Primaria, Vol. 18, No. 3A Preliminary Evaluation of Multi-probe Resonance-frequency Electrical Impedance Based Measurements of the BreastBinZheng, DrorLederman, Jules H.Sumkin, Margarita L.Zuley, Michelle Z.Gruss, Linda S.Lovy, DavidGur2011 | Academic Radiology, Vol. 18, No. 2Patient Preferences in Breast Cancer ScreeningGelarehSadigh, Aine M.Kelly, AngelaFagerlin, Ruth C.Carlos2011 | Academic Radiology, Vol. 18, No. 11Computerized prediction of risk for developing breast cancer based on bilateral mammographic breast tissue asymmetryXingweiWang, DrorLederman, JunTan, Xiao HuiWang, BinZheng2011 | Medical Engineering & Physics, Vol. 33, No. 8Rational and Irrational Issues in Breast Cancer ScreeningCornelia J.Baines2011 | Cancers, Vol. 3, No. 1Author's ReplyR. JamesBrenner2010Nov1 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 7, No. 11Wise Words from Drs Berlin and HallCornelia J. Baines, , 1 October 2010 | Radiology, Vol. 257, No. 1The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines Are Not Supported by the Scientific EvidenceDaniel B. Kopans, , 1 October 2010 | Radiology, Vol. 257, No. 1Evidence-based Advocacy Rather than Emotion in Defense of Screening MammographyJohn Patti, , Carol Lee, , 1 October 2010 | Radiology, Vol. 257, No. 1U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: The Unbalanced ViewW. Phil Evans, , Carol H. Lee, , Barbara S. Monsees, , Debra L. Monticciolo, , Murray Rebner, , 1 October 2010 | Radiology, Vol. 257, No. 1Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography: Current Status and An OverviewMahesh K.Shetty2010 | Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 1, No. 3Recommended Articles Change Is Good: The Evolution and Future of Breast ImagingRadiology2023Volume: 306Issue: 3Closing the Gap: Disparities in Breast Cancer Mortality among African American WomenRadiology: Imaging Cancer2020Volume: 2Issue: 5Breast Imaging in Transgender Patients: What the Radiologist Should KnowRadioGraphics2019Volume: 40Issue: 1pp. 13-27Prostate Cancer: Improving the Flow of ResearchRadiology2018Volume: 287Issue: 1pp. 5-9Obligate Overdiagnosis Due to Mammographic Screening: A Direct Estimate for U.S. WomenRadiology2017Volume: 287Issue: 2pp. 391-397See More RSNA Education Exhibits Breast Imaging Controversies In The Elderly PopulationDigital Posters2021Urban Mobile Mammography: Bringing Mammography to the UnderservedDigital Posters2020Let’s Talk about Next-Generation Breast Cancer Screening Programs: How Should We Do? What Should We Use?Digital Posters2020 RSNA Case Collection Locally Advanced Breast CancerRSNA Case Collection2021Male breast cancerRSNA Case Collection2020Male Breast CancerRSNA Case Collection2021 Vol. 255, No. 2 Supplemental MaterialMetrics Altmetric Score PDF download" @default.
• W2014379348 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2014379348 creator A5045905673 @default.
• W2014379348 creator A5090463566 @default.
• W2014379348 date "2010-05-01" @default.
• W2014379348 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2014379348 title "More Mammography Muddle: Emotions, Politics, Science, Costs, and Polarization" @default.
• W2014379348 cites W1967433636 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W1969762788 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W1985495726 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W1989112578 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W1990664562 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W1995249854 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2006639326 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2016603843 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2026974729 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2030564916 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2034025797 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2035195754 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2041914581 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2045438818 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2072713682 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2081625373 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2100951779 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2102976033 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2121581814 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2128222547 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2139558500 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2146899794 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2155030377 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2322707607 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W2579520182 @default.
• W2014379348 cites W4245193238 @default.
• W2014379348 doi "https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100056" @default.
• W2014379348 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20413746" @default.
• W2014379348 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2014379348 type Work @default.
• W2014379348 sameAs 2014379348 @default.
• W2014379348 citedByCount "57" @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482012 @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482013 @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482014 @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482015 @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482016 @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482017 @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482018 @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482020 @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482022 @default.
• W2014379348 countsByYear W20143793482023 @default.
• W2014379348 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2014379348 hasAuthorship W2014379348A5045905673 @default.
• W2014379348 hasAuthorship W2014379348A5090463566 @default.
• W2014379348 hasBestOaLocation W20143793481 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C147789679 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C205049153 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C2780472235 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C121608353 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C126322002 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C147789679 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C17744445 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C185592680 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C19527891 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C199539241 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C205049153 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C2780472235 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C530470458 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C71924100 @default.
• W2014379348 hasConceptScore W2014379348C94625758 @default.
• W2014379348 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2014379348 hasLocation W20143793481 @default.
• W2014379348 hasLocation W20143793482 @default.
• W2014379348 hasOpenAccess W2014379348 @default.
• W2014379348 hasPrimaryLocation W20143793481 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W1967588459 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W2012889557 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W2025749204 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W2074702697 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W2159213761 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W2168784165 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W4205148905 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W4298865006 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W4302155564 @default.
• W2014379348 hasRelatedWork W643246895 @default.
• W2014379348 hasVolume "255" @default.
• W2014379348 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2014379348 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2014379348 magId "2014379348" @default.
• W2014379348 workType "article" @default.