Etta Pisano to Observer Variation
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Etta Pisano has written about Observer Variation.
Connection Strength
0.845
-
Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Oct; 203(4):909-16.
Score: 0.108
-
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.
Score: 0.091
-
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.
Score: 0.085
-
Comparison of image acquisition and radiologist interpretation times in a diagnostic mammography center. Acad Radiol. 2010 Sep; 17(9):1168-74.
Score: 0.080
-
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.
Score: 0.075
-
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.
Score: 0.075
-
Improving the detection of simulated masses in mammograms through two different image-processing techniques. Acad Radiol. 2001 Sep; 8(9):845-55.
Score: 0.044
-
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.
Score: 0.040
-
Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms. Med Phys. 1999 Nov; 26(11):2266-72.
Score: 0.038
-
Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality. Acad Radiol. 1999 Aug; 6(8):464-70.
Score: 0.038
-
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.
Score: 0.033
-
Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms? J Digit Imaging. 1997 May; 10(2):79-84.
Score: 0.032
-
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.
Score: 0.017
-
Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26.
Score: 0.016
-
A comparative study of 2D and 3D ultrasonography for evaluation of solid breast masses. Eur J Radiol. 2005 Jun; 54(3):365-70.
Score: 0.014
-
Low-dose multidetector dynamic CT in the breast: preliminary study. Clin Imaging. 2005 May-Jun; 29(3):172-8.
Score: 0.014
-
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.
Score: 0.013
-
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.
Score: 0.012
-
A method for determination of optimal image enhancement for the detection of mammographic abnormalities. J Digit Imaging. 1994 Nov; 7(4):161-71.
Score: 0.007
-
Computed tomography interpretations with a low-cost workstation: a timing study. J Digit Imaging. 1994 Aug; 7(3):133-9.
Score: 0.007
-
Effects of delayed processing on mammographic phantom object detection. Invest Radiol. 1993 Dec; 28(12):1113-9.
Score: 0.006