Connection

Etta Pisano to Humans

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Etta Pisano has written about Humans.
Etta Pisano
Connection Strength
1.144
Humans
  1. How Radiologists Can Improve Breast Cancer Screening. Radiology. 2022 02; 302(2):295-297.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.030
  2. RE: Advanced Breast Cancer Definitions by Staging System Examined in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 07 01; 113(7):938-939.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  3. AI shows promise for breast cancer screening. Nature. 2020 01; 577(7788):35-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  4. Risk-Based Screening Mammography for Women Aged <40: Outcomes From the National Mammography Database. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020 Mar; 17(3):368-376.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  5. Big Data and Radiology Research. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019 Sep; 16(9 Pt B):1347-1350.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  6. Is Tomosynthesis the Future of Breast Cancer Screening? Radiology. 2018 04; 287(1):47-48.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.024
  7. Robert McLelland, MD. Radiology. 2017 Dec; 285(3):1066.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  8. Mammographic Density Change With Estrogen and Progestin Therapy and Breast Cancer Risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 09 01; 109(9).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  9. Reply to "Reducing Gender Discrepancies in Academic Radiology". AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 11; 207(5):W105.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  10. Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program--Evidence that Direct Radiography Is Superior to Computed Radiography for Cancer Detection. Radiology. 2016 Feb; 278(2):311-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  11. Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Apr; 108(4).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  12. Tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening. Clin Imaging. 2016 Mar-Apr; 40(2):283-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  13. 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: 0.018
  14. Breast cancer screening: should tomosynthesis replace digital mammography? JAMA. 2014 Jun 25; 311(24):2488-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  15. Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jun; 174(6):954-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  16. 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: 0.016
  17. 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: 0.016
  18. 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: 0.015
  19. Mode of detection and secular time for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010; 2010(41):142-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  20. Effect of breast compression on lesion characteristic visibility with diffraction-enhanced imaging. Acad Radiol. 2010 Apr; 17(4):433-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  21. 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: 0.013
  22. 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: 0.013
  23. Mammographic findings of partial breast irradiation. Acad Radiol. 2009 Jul; 16(7):819-25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  24. 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: 0.012
  25. Premedical education. Acad Med. 2008 Dec; 83(12):1122; author reply 1122.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  26. Insurance status and the severity of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Acad Radiol. 2008 Oct; 15(10):1255-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  27. 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: 0.012
  28. Should breast imaging practices convert to digital mammography? A response from members of the DMIST Executive Committee. Radiology. 2007 Oct; 245(1):12-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  29. Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007 Sep; 45(5):813-30, vi.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  30. 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: 0.011
  31. Comparison of three methods to increase knowledge about breast cancer and breast cancer screening in screening mammography patients. Acad Radiol. 2007 May; 14(5):553-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  32. Choosing a specialty in medicine: female medical students and radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Apr; 188(4):897-900.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  33. 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: 0.011
  34. Digital mammography: what next? J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):583-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  35. Image quality in digital mammography: image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):589-608.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  36. Storage, transmission, and retrieval of digital mammography, including recommendations on image compression. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):609-14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  37. Digital mammography image quality: image display. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):615-27.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  38. 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: 0.010
  39. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology. 2005 Aug; 236(2):404-12.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  40. Issues in breast cancer screening. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2005 Feb; 4(1):5-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  41. Digital mammography. Radiology. 2005 Feb; 234(2):353-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  42. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and management of breast cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2004 Dec; 3(6):527-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  43. 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: 0.009
  44. Factors affecting increasing radiation dose for mammography in North Carolina from 1997 through 2001: an analysis of Food and Drug Administration annual surveys. Acad Radiol. 2004 May; 11(5):536-43.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  45. Online annotation tool for digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2004 May; 11(5):566-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  46. Rosai-Dorfman disease presenting as a suspicious breast mass. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Jun; 180(6):1740-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  47. Factors predicting successful needle-localized breast biopsy. Acad Radiol. 2003 Jun; 10(6):601-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  48. Ultrasound in the management of breast disease. Curr Womens Health Rep. 2003 Apr; 3(2):156-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  49. 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: 0.008
  50. Congressional update: Report from the Biomedical Imaging Program of the National Cancer Institute. American College of Radiology Imaging Network: The digital mammographic imaging screening trial--an update. Acad Radiol. 2002 Mar; 9(3):374-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  51. Linking Structural Racism and Discrimination and Breast Cancer Outcomes: A Social Genomics Approach. J Clin Oncol. 2022 05 01; 40(13):1407-1413.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  52. Improving the detection of simulated masses in mammograms through two different image-processing techniques. Acad Radiol. 2001 Sep; 8(9):845-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  53. Factors affecting phantom scores at annual mammography facility inspections by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Acad Radiol. 2001 Sep; 8(9):864-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  54. 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: 0.007
  55. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology. 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  56. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics. 2000 Sep-Oct; 20(5):1479-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  57. Digital mammography, sestamibi breast scintigraphy, and positron emission tomography breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 Jul; 38(4):861-9, x.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  58. Multi-Institutional Assessment and Crowdsourcing Evaluation of Deep Learning for Automated Classification of Breast Density. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020 Dec; 17(12):1653-1662.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  59. 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: 0.007
  60. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2000 Apr; 7(4):266-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  61. Human breast cancer specimens: diffraction-enhanced imaging with histologic correlation--improved conspicuity of lesion detail compared with digital radiography. Radiology. 2000 Mar; 214(3):895-901.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  62. Embolization coils as tumor markers for mammography in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Jan; 174(1):251-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  63. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2000 Jan; 214(1):26-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  64. Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms. Med Phys. 1999 Nov; 26(11):2266-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  65. Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality. Acad Radiol. 1999 Aug; 6(8):464-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  66. Diagnosis please. Case 8: solitary intraductal papilloma. Radiology. 1999 Mar; 210(3):795-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  67. Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms. J Digit Imaging. 1998 Nov; 11(4):193-200.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  68. Screening behavior of women after a false-positive mammogram. Radiology. 1998 Jul; 208(1):245-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  69. Educational outreach to mammography facility staff to assist with compliance with the Mammography Quality Standards Act in rural North Carolina. Acad Radiol. 1998 Jul; 5(7):485-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  70. Advanced breast biopsy instrumentation: a critique. Acad Radiol. 1998 Jul; 5(7):513-5; discussion 516.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  71. MRI, Clinical Examination, and Mammography for Preoperative Assessment of Residual Disease and Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: ACRIN 6657 Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jun; 210(6):1376-1385.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  72. Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: The Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 Study. The RDOG5 investigators. Cancer. 1998 Feb 15; 82(4):679-88.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  73. Screening mammography behavior after a false positive mammogram. Cancer Detect Prev. 1998; 22(2):161-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  74. 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: 0.006
  75. Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms? J Digit Imaging. 1997 May; 10(2):79-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  76. 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: 0.005
  77. Ultrasound and MR findings in acute Budd-Chiari syndrome with histopathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1996 Sep-Oct; 20(5):819-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  78. Men (and Women) in Academic Radiology: How Can We Reduce the Gender Discrepancy? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Apr; 206(4):678-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  79. Virtual environments technology to aid needle biopsies of the breast. An example of real-time data fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1996; 29:60-1.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  80. Patient compliance in mobile screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 1995 Dec; 2(12):1067-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  81. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: Functional Tumor Volume by MR Imaging Predicts Recurrence-free Survival-Results from the ACRIN 6657/CALGB 150007 I-SPY 1 TRIAL. Radiology. 2016 Apr; 279(1):44-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  82. New modalities in breast imaging: digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1995 Jul; 35(1):31-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  83. Breast imaging fellowship programs. A survey of the fellows of the Society of Breast Imaging. Invest Radiol. 1994 Apr; 29(4):415-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  84. A formal curriculum in breast imaging for radiology residents. Invest Radiol. 1993 Aug; 28(8):762-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  85. Assessing the role of ultrasound in predicting the biological behavior of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Feb; 200(2):284-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  86. Improving diversity through strategic planning: a 10-year (2002-2012) experience at theMedical University of South Carolina. Acad Med. 2012 Nov; 87(11):1548-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  87. Automated delineation of calcified vessels in mammography by tracking with uncertainty and graphical linking techniques. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2012 Nov; 31(11):2143-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  88. Locally advanced breast cancer: MR imaging for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy--results from ACRIN 6657/I-SPY TRIAL. Radiology. 2012 Jun; 263(3):663-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  89. 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: 0.004
  90. The politics of mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992 Jan; 30(1):235-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  91. 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: 0.004
  92. 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: 0.004
  93. Implementation of breast cancer screening. Curr Opin Radiol. 1991 Aug; 3(4):579-87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  94. 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: 0.004
  95. Dietary vitamin D and calcium intake and mammographic density in postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2010 Nov-Dec; 17(6):1152-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  96. Strategies for more effective delivery of mammography screening services. Curr Opin Radiol. 1990 Oct; 2(5):726-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  97. Issues in mammography. Cancer. 1990 Sep 15; 66(6 Suppl):1341-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  98. 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: 0.003
  99. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Feb; 194(2):362-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  100. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology. 2010 Jan; 254(1):79-87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  101. Recommendations for research priorities in breast cancer by the coalition of cancer cooperative groups scientific leadership council: imaging and local therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Apr; 120(2):273-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  102. Conjugated equine estrogen influence on mammographic density in postmenopausal women in a substudy of the women's health initiative randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 20; 27(36):6135-43.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  103. Preoperative localization of inferior breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989 Aug; 153(2):272.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  104. Diffraction-enhanced imaging of musculoskeletal tissues using a conventional x-ray tube. Acad Radiol. 2009 Aug; 16(8):918-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  105. Characterization of diffraction-enhanced imaging contrast in breast cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2009 May 21; 54(10):3247-56.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  106. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  107. Detection of arterial calcification in mammograms by random walks. Inf Process Med Imaging. 2009; 21:713-24.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  108. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST. Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  109. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability? Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  110. Research for North Carolina: The University Cancer Research Fund. N C Med J. 2008 Jul-Aug; 69(4):299-302.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  111. 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: 0.003
  112. 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: 0.003
  113. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 01; 148(1):1-10.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  114. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007 Aug; 244(2):381-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  115. Factors affecting decreasing radiation dose for mammography in North Carolina after 2002: an analysis of Food and Drug Administration annual surveys. Acad Radiol. 2007 Jun; 14(6):685-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  116. 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: 0.003
  117. 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: 0.003
  118. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  119. 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: 0.003
  120. 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: 0.003
  121. 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: 0.003
  122. Consensus review: A method of assessment of calcifications that appropriately undergo a six-month follow-up. Acad Radiol. 2006 May; 13(5):621-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  123. Computation of mass-density images from x-ray refraction-angle images. Phys Med Biol. 2006 Apr 07; 51(7):1769-78.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  124. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys. 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  125. 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: 0.003
  126. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006 Jan; 238(1):42-53.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  127. A comparative study of mobile electronic data entry systems for clinical trials data collection. Int J Med Inform. 2006 Oct-Nov; 75(10-11):722-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  128. 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: 0.002
  129. 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: 0.002
  130. Estrogen-plus-progestin use and mammographic density in postmenopausal women: Women's Health Initiative randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Sep 21; 97(18):1366-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  131. 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: 0.002
  132. Imaging and cancer: research strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Radiology. 2005 Jun; 235(3):741-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  133. 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: 0.002
  134. Low-dose multidetector dynamic CT in the breast: preliminary study. Clin Imaging. 2005 May-Jun; 29(3):172-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  135. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol. 2005 May; 12(5):585-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  136. Future directions in breast imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 10; 23(8):1674-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  137. Mass density images from the diffraction enhanced imaging technique. Med Phys. 2005 Feb; 32(2):549-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  138. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. 2004 Dec 08; 292(22):2735-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  139. 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: 0.002
  140. 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: 0.002
  141. 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: 0.002
  142. Does biopsy, aspiration or six-month follow-up of a false-positive mammogram reduce future screening or have large psychosocial effects? Acad Radiol. 2003 Nov; 10(11):1257-66.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  143. Cortisol levels and responses to mammography screening in breast cancer survivors: a pilot study. Psychosom Med. 2003 Sep-Oct; 65(5):842-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  144. Pregnancy- and lactation-associated breast cancer: mammographic and sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2003 May; 22(5):491-7; quiz 498-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  145. Prevention and early detection clinical trials: opportunities for primary care providers and their patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003 Mar-Apr; 53(2):82-101.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  146. 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: 0.002
  147. 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: 0.002
  148. 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: 0.002
  149. Evaluation of thrombogenicity of fluoropassivated polyester patches following carotid endarterectomy. Ann Vasc Surg. 2001 Nov; 15(6):679-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  150. Communicating results of diagnostic mammography: what do patients think? Acad Radiol. 2000 Dec; 7(12):1069-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  151. First human experience with pulmonary vein isolation using a through-the-balloon circumferential ultrasound ablation system for recurrent atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2000 Oct 17; 102(16):1879-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  152. Informing patients of diagnostic mammography results: mammographer's opinions. Acad Radiol. 2000 May; 7(5):335-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  153. Paget disease of the breast: a pictorial essay. Radiographics. 1998 Nov-Dec; 18(6):1459-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  154. A program to control breast and cervical cancer in North Carolina. N C Med J. 1998 Mar-Apr; 59(2):110-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  155. Future directions in imaging of breast diseases. Radiology. 1998 Feb; 206(2):297-300.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  156. A pilot study of eye movement during mammography interpretation: eyetracker results and workstation design implications. J Digit Imaging. 1997 Feb; 10(1):14-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  157. Mammographic phantom studies with synchrotron radiation. Radiology. 1996 Sep; 200(3):659-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  158. Safety of nurse-administered deep sedation for defibrillator implantation in the electrophysiology laboratory. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1996 Apr; 7(4):301-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  159. Cholelithoptysis: an unusual complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Clin Imaging. 1995 Apr-Jun; 19(2):118-21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  160. Late occlusion of aortofemoral bypass graft: surgical treatment. Cardiovasc Surg. 1994 Dec; 2(6):763-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  161. A method for determination of optimal image enhancement for the detection of mammographic abnormalities. J Digit Imaging. 1994 Nov; 7(4):161-71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  162. Eye movement during computed tomography interpretation: eyetracker results and image display-time implications. J Digit Imaging. 1994 Nov; 7(4):189-92.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  163. Computed tomography interpretations with a low-cost workstation: a timing study. J Digit Imaging. 1994 Aug; 7(3):133-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  164. Effects of delayed processing on mammographic phantom object detection. Invest Radiol. 1993 Dec; 28(12):1113-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  165. Real-time radiologist review of remote ultrasound using low-cost video and voice. Invest Radiol. 1993 Aug; 28(8):732-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  166. 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: 0.001
  167. Carotid endarterectomy in young adults. Int Angiol. 1991 Oct-Dec; 10(4):220-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
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.