Select Page
Performs

PERFORMS EQA Evidence

The possibility of 3W (Whatever required, Whenever, Wherever) Mammographic Interpretation Training
British Journal of Radiology Congress Series, Proc UK Radiological Congress p.63
Chen Y., Gale A.G. & Scott H.J.
Anytime, Anywhere Mammographic Interpretation Training
In Bust P.D.(Ed.). Contemporary Ergonomics (London). Taylor and Francis
Chen Y., Gale A.G. & Scott H.J.
How much is enough: factors affecting the optimal interpretation of breast screening mammograms
In Jiang Y. & Sahiner B. (Eds.). Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, Proc. SPIE 5789
Scott H.J. & Gale A.G.
The role of perception in ultrasound image interpretation
In Bust P.D.(Ed.). Contemporary Ergonomics (London). Taylor and Francis
Chambers S. & Gale A.G.
Does mammographic practice affect film reading style – Breast Screening vs. Symptomatic Radiologists?
In Eckstein M.P. & Jiang Y. (Eds.). Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, Proc. SPIE 5749
Scott H.J. & Gale A.G.
Keeping a breast of the times
In Bust P.D.(Ed.). Contemporary Ergonomics (London) Taylor and Francis
Gale A.G. & Scott H.J.
Breast screening: PERFORMS identifies key mammographic training needs
British Journal of Radiology, 79(S127-S133)
Scott H.J. & Gale A.G.
Symptomatic and screening film readers – a difference in reading style?
Breast Cancer Research, 8(1), S4
Scott H.J. & Gale A.G.
Breast ultrasound training scheme
Breast Cancer Research, 8(1), S13
Gale A.G. & Chambers S.
Breast screening: when is a difficult case truly difficult and for whom?
In Eckstein M.P. & Jiang Y. (Eds.). Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, Proc. SPIE 5749
Scott H.J. & Gale A.G.
Prompting in computer aided detection – a novel approach
In Eckstein M.P. & Jiang Y. (Eds.). Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, Proc. SPIE 5749
Hatton J.W., Wooding D.S., Gale A.G. & Scott H.J.
Breast Screening Technologists: does real-life case volume affect performance?
In Pisano E. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Digital Mammography
Scott H.J., Gale A.G. & Wooding D.S.
European Breast Screening Performance: does case volume matter?
In Chakraborty D.P. & Eckstein M.P. (Eds.). Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, Proc. SPIE 5372
Scott H.J., Gale A.G. & Wooding D.S.
The Effect of Novel Prompts upon Radiologists’ Visual Search of Mammograms
In Chakraborty D.P. & Eckstein M.P. (Eds.). Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, Proc. SPIE 5372
Hatton J.W., Wooding D.S., Gale A.G. & Scott H.J.
Breast Screening: Experience Versus Expertise
In Chakraborty D.P. & Eckstein M.P. (Eds.). Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, Proc. SPIE 5372
Gale A.G., Scott H.J. & Wooding D.S.
The CAD interface in breast screening: effect of image scale and detail upon transcription accuracy
In Lemke H.U., Vannier M.W., Farman A.G., Doi K. & Reiber J.H.C. (Eds.). Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery (Amsterdam) Elsevier Science
Hatton J.W., Wooding D.S., Gale A.G. & Purdy K.J.
Accuracy of transcribing locations on mammograms: implications for the user interface for recording and assessing breast screening decisions
In Krupinski E.A. (Ed.) Medical Imaging 2003: Image and Performance, Proc. SPIE 5034
Hatton J.W., Wooding D.S., Gale A.G. & Purdy K.J.
PERFORMS – a self assessment scheme for radiologists in breast screening
Seminars in Breast Disease, 6(3)
Gale A.G.
Improving the Accuracy of Mammography: Volume and Outcome Relationships
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94(5)
Esserman L., Cowley H.C., Eberle C., Kirkpatrick A., Chang S., Berbaum K., & Gale A.G.
Recording breast screening decisions: human factors and new technology
Breast Cancer Research, 4(Suppl. 1):37
Hatton J., Wooding D.S., Purdy K.J., Bateman S.M., Gale A.G. & Cowley H.C.