ライフサイエンスコーパス: radiologist

1 Breast MRI scans were read by a radiologist.

2 ng on the level of experience of the reading radiologist.

3 patient age, breast density, and individual radiologist.

4 ory modifications were verified with another radiologist.

5 re electronically marked and classified by a radiologist.

6 uclear medicine physicians were later career radiologists.

7 formance concordant with those of practicing radiologists.

8 e teams of experienced nuclear physicians or radiologists.

9 atients were read independently by all three radiologists.

10 CT/CT Bremsstrahlung images by 2 experienced radiologists.

11 years) were retrospectively reviewed by two radiologists.

12 imaging when images are read by experienced radiologists.

13 y clinicians, and in 57 (66%) of 86 cases by radiologists.

14 four different fixed navigation speeds to 23 radiologists.

15 e and more frequently than did clinicians or radiologists.

16 ently analyzed for motion artifacts by three radiologists.

17 a diagnosis made by individual clinicians or radiologists.

18 The MRI scans were evaluated by two radiologists.

19 ographs were reviewed independently by study radiologists.

20 d senior radiologist as well as three junior radiologists.

21 egions were determined by two interventional radiologists.

22 ring a growing interest among urologists and radiologists.

23 singly being overseen by both clinicians and radiologists.

24 her than OSEM reconstructions when scored by radiologists.

25 gle-shot fast spin-echo images by one of six radiologists (1-3 years of experience) who were trained

26 olute adjusted difference for female vs male radiologists, -1.5%; 95% confidence interval: -3.8%, 0.9

27 on experiment was performed (16 readers [six radiologists, 10 medical physicists]).

28 ticipated (mean, 7.8 readers per center)-186 radiologists, 143 radiography advanced practitioners, an

29 secutive mammograms interpreted by different radiologists, 17.2% (5909 of 34 271) had discordant asse

30 n Masterfile to construct a cohort of 43 763 radiologists (20% women) and 64 990 psychiatrists (27% w

31 Results Among 5089 academic radiologists, 3638 (71.5%) were men.

32 were obtained from six BCSC registries (418 radiologists, 92 radiology facilities).

33 of fractures were marked and classified by a radiologist according to Denis column involvement.

34 CT scans were assessed by local radiologists according to Response Evaluation Criteria i

35 Conclusion Experienced radiologists achieved moderate reproducibility for PI-RA

36 Only 59.0% of radiologists achieved recommended AIRs, and only 63.0% a

37 tal screening mammography interpreted by 359 radiologists across 95 facilities in six Breast Cancer S

38 Radiologists agreed with their initial determination (th

39 Senior radiologist agreement on the PS/NS distinction increased

40 Radiologists also evaluated images for two new signs, su

41 The radiologist and clinician should be aware of these novel

42 oring of anatomic accuracy by an experienced radiologist and nuclear medicine physician were performe

43 otid arteries by an experienced radionuclide radiologist and radiographer.

44 State-to-state variations in radiologist and radiology resident workforces are high,

45 y with accuracy similar to that of an expert radiologist and to that of existing automated models.

46 the follow-up period (1979-2008), 4260 male radiologists and 7815 male psychiatrists died.

47 Two radiologists and a nuclear medicine physician in consens

48 etrospectively reviewed by 2 board-certified radiologists and a radiology resident individually; each

49 s (56% vs 68% and 49% vs 67% [P < .0001] for radiologists and advanced practitioner radiographers, re

50 injuries are ubiquitous among interventional radiologists and are often not reported.

51 suspicious for malignancy by two independent radiologists and classified as malignant or benign after

52 y were reviewed by two experienced pulmonary radiologists and detailed findings were reported on.

53 Radiologists and gynaecologists should be well acquainte

54 hould be kept in mind by both clinicians and radiologists and looked for in order to prevent life-thr

55 Ligament lesions are more challenging for radiologists and may lead to carpal instability if undia

56 the inter-observer variation among screening radiologists and provide a quantitative reference for fu

57 ancers to assess whether differences between radiologists and psychiatrists are consistent with known

58 ased on hand radiographs with that of expert radiologists and that of existing automated models.

59 at time 0 was determined by consensus of two radiologists and the number of CAD-system-detected nodul

60 e distribution of performance metrics across radiologists and were presented as 50th (median), 10th,

61 specialists, neuroradiologists (10.1% of all radiologists) and breast imagers (8.4%) are most common.

62 m 1995 (27 906 radiologists) to 2011 (38 875 radiologists), and radiologists per 100 000 population n

63 First, the clinician, radiologist, and pathologist (if lung biopsy was complet

64 MDTMs, consisting of at least one clinician, radiologist, and pathologist, from seven countries (Denm

65 tative semantic features that were scored by radiologists, and 57 quantitative radiomic features that

66 s an international consortium of physicians, radiologists, and microbiologists from countries with a

67 acic imagers were more commonly early career radiologists, and nuclear medicine physicians were later

68 on oncologists, radiologists, interventional radiologists, and other disciplines.

69 Two clinicians, two radiologists, and two pathologists sequentially reviewed

70 A thoracic radiologist annotated 89 semantic image features of each

71 us on radiology subspecialization, most U.S. radiologists are majority general radiologists on the ba

72 This article focuses on the radiologist as spine interventionist and addresses the f

73 ication criteria and involved a third senior radiologist as well as three junior radiologists.

74 hase CT scans were graded independently by 2 radiologists as grade 0, no thrombosis; grade 1, periphe

75 One radiologist assessed 3-T MR images from baseline and 24-

76 nt outcomes were recorded and an independent radiologist assessed response using Choi and RECIST.

77 A senior radiologist assessed the biliary passage for anatomical

78 The radiologists assessed 799 referrals for CT scans (847 ex

79 Two radiologists assessed cartilage and meniscus defects on

80 Three independent blinded radiologists assessed subjective image quality, and one

81 MATERIAL/METHODS: Three radiologists assessed the justification of CT and MRI ex

82 urgeon, with a masked gastroenterologist and radiologist assessing the therapeutic effect.

83 A radiologist-augmented approach for cases where there was

84 This radiologist-augmented approach resulted in a sensitivity

85 terpreted the images to evaluate a potential radiologist-augmented workflow.

86 For the radiologist, awareness of imaging features of common con

87 Images were qualitatively analyzed by three radiologists blinded to detector type.

88 Two radiologists blinded to surgical pathology results and c

89 k test) in five regions of interest by three radiologists blinded to the detector system, and the axi

90 Three experienced radiologists (blinded to LOP values) evaluated a total o

91 n independent board-certified cardiothoracic radiologist blindly interpreted the images to evaluate a

92 f lung cancers that were not detected by the radiologist but failed to detect about 20% of the lung c

93 We have found that radiologists can discriminate normal from abnormal mammo

94 Radiologists can help maximize patient care by being fam

95 Radiologists can leverage their training in MR image int

96 When radiologists cannot articulate their value, they risk lo

97 The radiologists classified whether or not each nodule was s

98 Results In total, 908 (23%) interventional radiologists completed at least a portion of the survey.

99 emic radiologists in 2014; 11.3% of all U.S. radiologists) containing information on physician age, y

100 c oncologists, pathologists, biologists, and radiologists convened during and after the Third and Fou

101 ribed qualitatively and quantitatively using radiologist-defined "semantic" and computer-derived "rad

102 t may help transform the marked variation in radiologists' diagnostic performance into targeted quali

103 EI may serve as a screening tool to help the radiologist differentiate patients with NPH from patient

104 During the first stage radiologists divided the examinations into 3 groups: jus

105 ng densities were measured by AMFM and three radiologists, documenting baseline disease extent and po

106 as discussed among clinicians, pathologists, radiologists, epidemiologists, and investigators with ex

107 A blinded clinical radiologist evaluated both sets of images.

108 Three radiologists evaluated conventional, DW, and DCE MR imag

109 Four radiologists evaluated lesion presence on a five-point d

110 Two radiologists evaluated lesions as follows: score 1, homo

111 PPV3 of digital mammography increased after radiologist experience with DBT.

112 Vs) for digital mammography before and after radiologist experience with digital breast tomosynthesis

113 The USG and MRI were interpreted by two radiologists experienced in musculoskeletal radiology an

114 fellow and by a fellowship-trained abdominal radiologist for examinations with disagreement between t

115 , correct classification was achieved by all radiologists for 58% (70 of 120) of nodules.

116 nal and spinal interventions, as well as for radiologists for precise interpretation of angiograms.

117 Images were subjectively evaluated by eight radiologists for quality and diagnostic confidence for C

118 Centaur radiologists, formed as a synergy of human plus computer

119 s and Methods A total of 3889 interventional radiologists from academic and private practice in the U

120 ers of the International PSC Study Group and radiologists from North America and Europe have compiled

121 Six radiologists from six separate institutions, all experie

122 Eight radiologists from the Cancer Genome Atlas Ovarian Cancer

123 Diagnostic radiologists generally produce unstructured information

124 atients whose CT scans were reviewed by four radiologists: Group A (n = 12) were cases of lung cancer

125 The male radiologists had lower death rates (all causes) compared

126 Surgeons and radiologists have traditionally focused on frontal radio

127 togenous metastases and LPI is important for radiologists; hematogenous metastases are associated wit

128 system has been developed by a committee of radiologists, hepatologists, pathologists, surgeons, lex

129 Three experienced thoracic radiologists identified true locations of nodules (n = 5

130 Unique anonymous radiologist identifiers were used to link the discrepanc

131 e starting to be used by a new generation of radiologists, important clinical questions have re-emerg

132 ortheastern Brazil is illustrated to aid the radiologist in identifying Zika virus infection at imagi

133 radiologists, inclusive of all U.S. academic radiologists in 2014; 11.3% of all U.S. radiologists) co

134 The reproducibility and accuracy of thoracic radiologists in classifying whether or not a nodule is s

135 ariation in breast density assessment across radiologists in clinical practice.

136 Radiologists in collaboration with industry must enhance

137 Recommended CDRs were achieved by 92.1% of radiologists in community practice, and 97.1% achieved r

138 Two radiologists in consensus interpreted the images.

139 64 cases with issues attributed to 32 and 27 radiologists in QA quality assurance and PR peer review

140 eir strengths and weaknesses, thus assisting radiologists in response assessment in the setting of cl

141 g inverse correlation with the percentage of radiologists in rural practice (r = -0.464 to -0.635).

142 Conclusion The majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass cancer detection recomm

143 luate the performance of the 2010 Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) consensus guidelines in

144 nsive 2014 physician database (5089 academic radiologists, inclusive of all U.S. academic radiologist

145 Two board-certified radiologists independently evaluated BH SPARSE-SPACE and

146 Two radiologists independently evaluated results from the MR

147 Eight radiologists independently interpreted twice deidentifie

148 Two blinded radiologists independently marked and graded all PEs on

149 Two radiologists independently measured these criteria in 50

150 Two gastrointestinal radiologists independently performed retrospective asses

151 Materials and Methods Two radiologists independently provided PI-RADS V2 scores fo

152 Study radiologists independently reviewed chest radiographs.

153 Two radiologists independently reviewed each examination for

154 Two radiologists independently reviewed the CT findings for

155 Two radiologists independently reviewed videotaped qualitati

156 9 patients with 43 HCAs were assessed by two radiologists independently then compared with the histop

157 Microhemorrhages were identified by two radiologists independently.

158 n of interest (ROI) and asking two different radiologists (interobserver) for their opinion.

159 d to record time-varying gaze paths while 13 radiologists interpreted 40 lung CT images with an avera

160 Ten breast-subspecialized radiologists interpreted approximately 90% of the examin

161 Three radiologists interpreted virtual noncalcium images for t

162 than the recommended rate for almost half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms.

163 asts varies substantially according to which radiologist interprets her mammogram.

164 medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, interventional radiologists, and other dis

165 hat scoring-based peer review tends to drive radiologists inward, against each other, and against pra

166 typing, accomplished by visual assessment of radiologists, is compared with a computational radiomic

167 nication between the referring clinician and radiologist leads to innumerable unnecessary examination

168 mpty our wallet), and with years of training radiologists learn to save lives by discerning subtle de

169 Five other radiologists marked nodules and indicated case managemen

170 A radiologist masked to clinical data measured (18)F-FDG u

171 An experienced radiologist, masked to histology, retrospectively review

172 d improved communication between surgeon and radiologist may decrease interobserver variability.

173 ity were present, which suggests that female radiologists may lack equal research opportunities.

174 ingle-phase CT angiography, even specialized radiologists may not reliably distinguish true cervical

175 were surveyed by emailing all interventional radiologist members of the Society of Interventional Rad

176 have a typical imaging appearance that every radiologist must be aware of.

177 Radiologists must be aware of the risk factors for react

178 Radiologists must identify the MRI features of vascular

179 Radiologists must understand the differences between ped

180 However, total radiologists nationally increased 39.2% from 1995 (27 90

181 n legislation on breast density reporting by radiologists nationally.

182 Emergency radiologists need to be aware of the CT findings so as t

183 atures on MR, which are must to know for all radiologists, neurologists and neurosurgeons for their p

184 heimer's disease, a conclusion that can help radiologists, neurologists, and other clinicians who dia

185 CT examinations and notify the interpreting radiologist of critical findings.

186 Two oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMRs) and two oral and maxillofacial surge

187 most U.S. radiologists are majority general radiologists on the basis of their work RVUs.

188 ed during a secondary review by a practicing radiologist or through an internal quality assurance pro

189 ng wherein observations were nested for each radiologist over time.

190 ure and the changes in radiation exposure to radiologists over time.

191 which only 7 were correctly reported by the radiologists (P = 0.037).

192 Nine radiologists participated in this study and interpreted

193 Clinicians, radiologists, pathologists, and the MDTMs assigned their

194 s with patients, and share their opinions on radiologist-patient communication.

195 ate positive state-by-state correlation with radiologists per 100 000 population (r = 0.292-0.532), b

196 f radiology trainees dramatically increased, radiologists per 100 000 population increased only sligh

197 ologists) to 2011 (38 875 radiologists), and radiologists per 100 000 population nationally increased

198 The current dominant model for radiologist performance improvement is scoring-based pee

199 Results More than half (55.3%) of U.S. radiologists practice predominantly as generalists but d

200 Among radiologists practicing as majority subspecialists, neur

201 The 208 deaths in female radiologists precluded detailed investigation, and the n

202 Board-certified radiologists provided initial preliminary interpretation

203 Three radiologists rated the images for presence of ventilatio

204 The two radiologists rated venous contamination as moderate to s

205 healthy subjects on spine CT scans by three radiologists (readers 1, 2, and 3) working in consensus.

206 s and genetic mutations is now essential for radiologists reading oncology cases.

207 For each tumor, a thoracic radiologist recorded 87 semantic image features, selecte

208 Radiologist reliability (kappa) was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.64 t

209 Radiologist reliability was assessed by kappa; a Hui-Wal

210 With magnetic resonance imaging, 2 radiologists rendered a consensus diagnosis of normal/in

211 review databases, respectively; 23 and nine radiologists, respectively, had cases attributed to only

212 Two radiologists retrospectively evaluated US images on the

213 Three radiologists retrospectively re-examined 97 consecutive

214 One radiologist reviewed baseline and follow-up CT and MR im

215 Six abdominal fellowship-trained radiologists reviewed the CT studies of 440 consecutive

216 of this disease in five of seven MDTMs, and radiologist's diagnosis of IPF in four of seven MDTMs.

217 tly missed or misinterpreted and require the radiologist's input in prompt detection and management.

218 opments in management of advanced RCC from a radiologist's perspective to highlight our clinical role

219 f the medical image are never fixated when a radiologist searches for cancer nodules.

220 Two expert radiologists segmented each tumor.

221 000 population increased only slightly, and radiologists' share of the overall physician workforce d

222 Radiologists' share of the overall physician workforce d

223 mine whether there is an association between radiologist shift length, schedule, or examination volum

224 fiers were used to link the discrepancies to radiologists' shifts and schedules.

225 Radiologists should be aware of imaging findings of inte

226 Radiologists should be aware of imaging findings of inte

227 Radiologists should be aware of the patient's history an

228 Radiologists should be aware of the typical and atypical

229 Radiologists should be aware of this rare and late onset

230 Radiologists should raise their awareness of imaging fin

231 Yet many radiologists struggle to harness the power of cost measu

232 Patients, investigators, local radiologists, study team, and anyone involved in the stu

233 Conclusion Many radiologists support the concept of communicating more d

234 wide variation in density assessment across radiologists that should be carefully considered by prov

235 tis with cases and remind the clinicians and radiologists the importance of the prompt diagnosis.

236 reoperative computed tomography (CT) affords radiologists the opportunity to prospectively identify a

237 Each radiologist then interpreted 120 randomly ordered nodule

238 Across radiologists, this percentage ranged from 6.3% to 84.5%

239 Readers (19 radiologists, three advanced practitioner radiographers,

240 te the rarity of POC, it is imperative for a radiologist to be aware of its wide spectrum of presenta

241 Despite its rarity, it is imperative for a radiologist to be aware of this subcutaneous form of the

242 esults reporting, make it difficult for site radiologists to adequately address local and multicenter

243 ischemic heart disease, it is important for radiologists to be familiar with the unique consideratio

244 ging findings and present an opportunity for radiologists to help PCPs and patients to best use the i

245 tration were independently reviewed by three radiologists to identify sites where T1 signal intensity

246 he gist signal in four experiments by asking radiologists to make detection and localization response

247 Most use interventional radiologists to perform and the donor hospital pathologi

248 nationally increased 39.2% from 1995 (27 906 radiologists) to 2011 (38 875 radiologists), and radiolo

249 d radiology, with specific attention paid to radiologist-to-patient communication; (b) examine the me

250 When radiologists' US diagnosis and the tHb were used togethe

251 Eight radiologists used a 5-point confidence scale to score 23

252 Images were assessed by two independent radiologists using a semi-automatic software tool.

253 ADCs were measured by two radiologists using three circular ROIs (three-ROIs), sin

254 F) versus not IPF for MDTMs, clinicians, and radiologists, using univariate Cox regression analysis.

255 After the senior radiologist (V.M.C.) reviewed the radiographs, the patie

256 The average age for male and female radiologists was 52 and 49 years, respectively.

257 m-detected nodules that were rejected by the radiologists was also documented.

258 readings, agreement among senior and junior radiologists was excellent for PS/NS distinction (ICC =

259 rachnoid space measurement between attending radiologists was measured using intraclass correlation c

260 that variation in density assessment across radiologists was pervasive in all but the most extreme p

261 formed (PPV3) of digital mammography for six radiologists were compared before (2009-2011) and after

262 Five consultant radiologists were deemed the reference expert group, and

263 Materials and Methods A total of 5999 radiologists were invited by e-mail to complete an anony

264 Annotations by two human radiologists were made for three categories: the presenc

265 of full professorship among female and male radiologists were not significantly different (absolute

266 Patients and investigators (including local radiologists) were masked to treatment assignment from r

267 d biopsies safely under the supervision of a radiologist, which can improve wait times and adequacy r

268 ung cancers when they were identified by the radiologist, which suggests that CAD may be useful in th

269 life and is intended to educate the general radiologist who may be faced with interpretation of neon

270 es the following four topics relevant to the radiologist who performs corticosteroid injections for p

271 ecialization is more common (P < .001) among radiologists who are female, are earlier in their career

272 The authors identified 33 090 radiologists who billed for professional services betwee

273 and/or myelodysplastic syndrome mortality in radiologists who graduated before 1940 is likely due to

274 iled investigation, and the number of female radiologists who graduated before 1940 was very small (n

275 ors found no evidence of excess mortality in radiologists who graduated more recently, possibly becau

276 Participants: Radiologists who interpreted at least 500 screening mamm

277 ppler ultrasound (CDU) were performed by two radiologists who looked for the presence or absence of b

278 ADC measurements were carried out by two radiologists who were blinded to each other's measuremen

279 Additionally, three radiologists who were blinded to the clinical, US, and s

280 Two radiologists who were blinded to the diagnosis independe

281 Two radiologists who were blinded to the image acquisition t

282 ch were blindly reviewed by a cardiothoracic radiologist, who correctly interpreted all 13 cases (100

283 performed separately by two musculoskeletal radiologists, who registered the number of metastases fo

284 8 and 2015 were first reviewed by two senior radiologists, who subjectively classified the nodules as

285 For radiologists whose role is to oversee the delivery of im

286 is a diagnostic challenge to a clinician and radiologist with gastric perforation being a great mimic

287 This article aims to provide radiologists with an up-to-date review of the most recen

288 One of four radiologists with different levels of expertise (1-9 yea

289 Radiologists with more than half of their billed work RV

290 Conclusion Among radiologists with U.S. medical school faculty appointmen

291 Matching radiologists with various characteristics extracted from

292 Five radiologists with varying levels of experience evaluated

293 Six thoracic radiologists, with a mean of 21 years of experience in t

294 patients, were reviewed independently by two radiologists, with consensus by a third, to assess CT fi

295 Cases were graded independently by two radiologists, with final grades resolved via consensus.

296 Images were reviewed by four radiologists, with final opinion achieved by means of co

297 s and decreasing PPVs, with less than 70% of radiologists within acceptable ranges for PPV2 and PPV3.

298 Radiologists worked in both a community setting, in whic

299 re used to compute parameters related to the radiologist workforce.

300 ecialty practice characteristics of the U.S. radiologist workforce.