Rongxi Yang, Katrin Pfütze, Manuela Zucknick, Christian Sutter, Barbara Wappenschmidt, Frederik Marme, Bin Qu, Katarina Cuk, Christoph Engel, Sarah Schott, Andreas Schneeweiss, Hermann Brenner, Rainer Claus, Christoph Plass, Peter Bugert, Markus Hoth, Christof Sohn, Rita Schmutzler, Claus R. Bartram, Barbara Burwinkel. . (2015) DNA methylation array analyses identified breast cancer-associated methylation in peripheral blood. 136, 1845-1855.
Changsong Wang, Bo Sun, Lei Guo, Xiaoyang Wang, Chaofu Ke, Shanshan Liu, Wei Zhao, Suqi Luo, Zhigang Guo, Yang Zhang, Guowang Xu, Enyou Li. . (2015) Volatile Organic Metabolites Identify Patients with Breast Cancer, Cyclomastopathy, and Mammary Gland Fibroma. 4:1.
Revising and editing are the two tasks you undertake to significantly improve your essay. Both are very important elements of the writing process. You may think that a completed first draft means little improvement is needed. However, even experienced writers need to improve their drafts and rely on peers during revising and editing. You may know that athletes miss catches, fumble balls, or overshoot goals. Dancers forget steps, turn too slowly, or miss beats. For both athletes and dancers, the more they practice, the stronger their performance will become. Web designers seek better images, a more clever design, or a more appealing background for their web pages. Writing has the same capacity to profit from improvement and revision.
Jaynes, in "Probability Theory With Applications in Science andEngineering", suggests that credibility and evidence should be measuredin decibels.
Decibels are used for measuring exponential differences ofintensity. For example, if the sound from an automobile horncarries 10,000 times as much energy (per square meter per second) asthe sound from an alarm clock, the automobile horn would be 40 decibelslouder. The sound of a bird singing might carry 1,000 times lessenergy than an alarm clock, and hence would be 30 decibelssofter. To get the number of decibels,you take the logarithm base 10 and multiply by 10.
Suppose we start with a prior probability of 1% that a woman has breastcancer, corresponding to an odds ratio of 1:99. And then weadminister three tests of likelihood ratios 25:3, 18:1, and 7:2. You multiply thosenumbers...
A total of 49,528 asymptomatic women presenting for screening mammography at 33 sites in the United States and Canada underwent both digital and film mammography. All relevant information was available for 42,760 of these women (86.3 percent). Mammograms were interpreted independently by two radiologists. Breast-cancer status was ascertained on the basis of a breast biopsy done within 15 months after study entry or a follow-up mammogram obtained at least 10 months after study entry. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the results.
Maria Sala, Dolores Salas, Francesc Belvis, Mar Sánchez, Joana Ferrer, Josefa Ibañez, Rubén Román, Francisco Ferrer, Alfonso Vega, Maria Soledad Laso, Xavier Castells. . (2011) Reduction in False-Positive Results after Introduction of Digital Mammography: Analysis from Four Population-based Breast Cancer Screening Programs in Spain. 258:2, 388-395.
Sue M Moss, Christopher Wale, Robert Smith, Andrew Evans, Howard Cuckle, Stephen W Duffy. . (2015) Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. 16:9, 1123-1132.
Christoph I. Lee, Constance D. Lehman. . (2016) Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and the Challenges of Implementing an Emerging Breast Cancer Screening Technology Into Clinical Practice. 13:11, R61-R66.
Mehmet Ulvi Saygi Ayvaci, Mehmet Eren Ahsen, Srinivasan Raghunathan, Zahra Gharibi. . (2017) Timing the Use of Breast Cancer Risk Information in Biopsy Decision-Making. 26:7, 1333-1358.
Christoph I. Lee, Constance D. Lehman. . (2013) Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and the Challenges of Implementing an Emerging Breast Cancer Screening Technology Into Clinical Practice. 10, 913-917.
We are indebted to the many people at the headquarters of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network and at the recruiting sites for their important contributions to the study; to the radiologists, physicists, and research associates at the clinical sites; to Dennis Fryback, Anna Tosteson, Shahla Masood, Bruce Hillman, Mitchell Schnall, Thomas Caldwell, Stephen King, Charles Apgar, Irene Mahon, Sophia Sabina, Bernadine Dunning, Jamie Downs, Tess Thompson, Heather Wallace, Elaine Pakuris, Donna Hartfeil, Jessie Flaim-Spetsas, Boris Ginsburgs, Sharon Jones, Maria Oh, Rex Welsh, Tim Welsh, Fraser Wilton, Anthony Levering, Anita Murray, Brenda Young, Cheryl Crozier, Mary Kelly Truran, Chris Steward, Thomas Iarocci, Crystal Wright, Janet Vogel, Karan Boparai, Rolma Mancinow, Josephine Schloesser, Sharlene Snowdon, Vish Iyer, JoAnn Stetz, Robert Smith, and the other members of the data and safety monitoring board; to Aili Bloomquist, Gordon Mawdsley, Sam Shen, Mary Brown, Elodia Cole, Beverly Currence, Cherie Kuzmiak, Ann Sherman, Jason Hauser, Dag Pavic, Marcia Koomen, Robert McLelland, Richard Clark, Christopher Parham, Robyn Ellison, Carolyn Kylstra, Sharon Weeks, Rachel Campbell, Emily Wilde, and the following members of the American College of Radiology Biostatistics Center: Lucy Hanna, Alicia Toledano, Ben Herman, Minran Li, Jean Cormack, Prashni Paliwal, Shang-Ying Shiu, and Helga Marques; and to the late Jo-Ann D'Amato for her important work on this project.
We found that digital mammography was significantly better than conventional film mammography at detecting breast cancer in young women, premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and women with dense breasts. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between digital and film mammography in the population as a whole or in other predefined subgroups. However, digital mammography offers other advantages over film mammography — namely, easier access to images and computer-assisted diagnosis; improved means of transmission, retrieval, and storage of images; and the use of a lower average dose of radiation without a compromise in diagnostic accuracy. We believe that the significant improvement in accuracy in specific subgroups of women justifies the use of digital mammography in these groups.
A total of 335 breast cancers were diagnosed in the DMIST cohort on the basis of reference-standard information during the 455 days after study entry (). Of these 335 cancers, 254 (75.8 percent) were diagnosed within 365 days after study mammography and 81 (24.2 percent) were diagnosed between 366 and 455 days after study mammography. The histologic findings and the stage of the breast cancers detected by the two methods were similar.