Connection

Etta Pisano to Sensitivity and Specificity

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Etta Pisano has written about Sensitivity and Specificity.
Etta Pisano
Connection Strength
1.610
Sensitivity and Specificity
  1. Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Oct; 203(4):909-16.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.088
  2. Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Sep; 199(3):W392-401.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.076
  3. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  4. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. Radiology. 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.070
  5. Effect of breast compression on lesion characteristic visibility with diffraction-enhanced imaging. Acad Radiol. 2010 Apr; 17(4):433-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  6. Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model. Radiology. 2009 Aug; 252(2):348-57.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  7. Radiologist evaluation of an X-ray tube-based diffraction-enhanced imaging prototype using full-thickness breast specimens. Acad Radiol. 2009 Nov; 16(11):1329-37.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  8. Design and implementation of a compact low-dose diffraction enhanced medical imaging system. Acad Radiol. 2009 Aug; 16(8):911-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  9. Bias in trials comparing paired continuous tests can cause researchers to choose the wrong screening modality. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Jan 20; 9:4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  10. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008 Feb; 246(2):376-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  11. Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography. Acad Radiol. 2007 Jun; 14(6):670-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  12. Morphologic blooming in breast MRI as a characterization of margin for discriminating benign from malignant lesions. Acad Radiol. 2006 Nov; 13(11):1344-54.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  13. Digital mammography: what next? J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):583-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.050
  14. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27; 353(17):1773-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.047
  15. Improved image contrast of calcifications in breast tissue specimens using diffraction enhanced imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2004 Aug 07; 49(15):3427-39.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  16. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology. 2002 May; 223(2):483-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  17. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V. Radiology. 2001 Jun; 219(3):785-92.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  18. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology. 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  19. Discrimination of benign from malignant breast lesions in dense breasts with model-based analysis of regions-of-interest using directional diffusion-weighted images. BMC Med Imaging. 2020 06 09; 20(1):61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  20. The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting. J Digit Imaging. 1997 Nov; 10(4):174-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  21. MR spectroscopy of breast cancer for assessing early treatment response: Results from the ACRIN 6657 MRS trial. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 07; 46(1):290-302.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  22. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012 Apr 04; 307(13):1394-404.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  23. Comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MRI in the contralateral breast of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jan; 198(1):219-32.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  24. Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis. Cancer. 2012 Apr 15; 118(8):2021-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  25. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011 Jan; 258(1):59-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  26. Optimal multidetector row CT parameters for evaluations of the breast: a phantom and specimen study. Acad Radiol. 2010 Jun; 17(6):744-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  27. Diffraction-enhanced imaging of musculoskeletal tissues using a conventional x-ray tube. Acad Radiol. 2009 Aug; 16(8):918-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  28. Characterization of diffraction-enhanced imaging contrast in breast cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2009 May 21; 54(10):3247-56.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  29. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  30. Detection of arterial calcification in mammograms by random walks. Inf Process Med Imaging. 2009; 21:713-24.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  31. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST. Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  32. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability? Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  33. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008 May 14; 299(18):2151-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  34. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. Radiology. 2008 Apr; 247(1):38-48.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  35. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 01; 148(1):1-10.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  36. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 29; 356(13):1295-303.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  37. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Mar-Apr; 57(2):75-89.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  38. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  39. Correlation of HER-2/neu overexpression with mammography and age distribution in primary breast carcinomas. Acad Radiol. 2006 Oct; 13(10):1211-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  40. The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population. Acad Radiol. 2006 Oct; 13(10):1229-35.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  41. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  42. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys. 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  43. Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial. Med Phys. 2006 Mar; 33(3):737-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  44. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006 Jan; 238(1):42-53.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  45. Added cancer yield of MRI in screening the contralateral breast of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer: results from the International Breast Magnetic Resonance Consortium (IBMC) trial. J Surg Oncol. 2005 Oct 01; 92(1):9-15; discussion 15-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  46. MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary breast cancer studied in IBMC 6883. J Surg Oncol. 2005 Oct 01; 92(1):32-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  47. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms. Med Phys. 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  48. A comparative study of 2D and 3D ultrasonography for evaluation of solid breast masses. Eur J Radiol. 2005 Jun; 54(3):365-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  49. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2005 May 01; 103(9):1898-905.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  50. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol. 2005 May; 12(5):585-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  51. Future directions in breast imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 10; 23(8):1674-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  52. Mass density images from the diffraction enhanced imaging technique. Med Phys. 2005 Feb; 32(2):549-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  53. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. 2004 Dec 08; 292(22):2735-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  54. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol. 2004 Aug; 11(8):879-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  55. Stereotactic and sonographic large-core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: results of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group V study. Acad Radiol. 2004 Mar; 11(3):293-308.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  56. Diagnostic agreement in the evaluation of image-guided breast core needle biopsies: results from a randomized clinical trial. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Jan; 28(1):126-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  57. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology. 2003 Jan; 226(1):153-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  58. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens. Acad Radiol. 2002 Dec; 9(12):1378-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  59. Should FDG PET be used to decide whether a patient with an abnormal mammogram or breast finding at physical examination should undergo biopsy? Acad Radiol. 2002 Jul; 9(7):773-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  60. Cerebral SPECT with 99mTc-HMPAO in extracranial carotid pathology: evaluation of changes in the ischemic area after carotid endarterectomy. Int Angiol. 1992 Apr-Jun; 11(2):117-21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.