Connection

Etta Pisano to Reproducibility of Results

This is a "connection" page, showing publications Etta Pisano has written about Reproducibility of Results.
Connection Strength

0.827
  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: 0.079
  2. 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: 0.067
  3. 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: 0.062
  4. Effect of breast compression on lesion characteristic visibility with diffraction-enhanced imaging. Acad Radiol. 2010 Apr; 17(4):433-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  5. 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: 0.055
  6. 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: 0.055
  7. 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: 0.054
  8. 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: 0.050
  9. 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: 0.046
  10. 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: 0.039
  11. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2000 Apr; 7(4):266-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  12. 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: 0.028
  13. 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: 0.023
  14. 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: 0.015
  15. 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: 0.014
  16. Diffraction-enhanced imaging of musculoskeletal tissues using a conventional x-ray tube. Acad Radiol. 2009 Aug; 16(8):918-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  17. Characterization of diffraction-enhanced imaging contrast in breast cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2009 May 21; 54(10):3247-56.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  18. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  19. Detection of arterial calcification in mammograms by random walks. Inf Process Med Imaging. 2009; 21:713-24.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  20. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST. Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  21. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability? Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  22. 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: 0.011
  23. 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: 0.011
  24. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys. 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  25. 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: 0.011
  26. 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: 0.011
  27. Mass density images from the diffraction enhanced imaging technique. Med Phys. 2005 Feb; 32(2):549-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  28. 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: 0.009
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.