Connection

Etta Pisano to Radiographic Image Enhancement

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Etta Pisano has written about Radiographic Image Enhancement.
Etta Pisano
Connection Strength
9.655
Radiographic Image Enhancement
  1. 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: 0.457
  2. 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: 0.416
  3. Breast cancer screening: should tomosynthesis replace digital mammography? JAMA. 2014 Jun 25; 311(24):2488-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.408
  4. 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: 0.360
  5. 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: 0.351
  6. 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: 0.328
  7. Comparison of image acquisition and radiologist interpretation times in a diagnostic mammography center. Acad Radiol. 2010 Sep; 17(9):1168-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.309
  8. Effect of breast compression on lesion characteristic visibility with diffraction-enhanced imaging. Acad Radiol. 2010 Apr; 17(4):433-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.299
  9. 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: 0.291
  10. 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: 0.290
  11. 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: 0.285
  12. 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: 0.262
  13. 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: 0.256
  14. Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007 Sep; 45(5):813-30, vi.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.255
  15. 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: 0.250
  16. Digital mammography: what next? J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):583-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.236
  17. Image quality in digital mammography: image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):589-608.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.236
  18. 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: 0.236
  19. Digital mammography image quality: image display. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):615-27.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.236
  20. 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: 0.222
  21. 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: 0.219
  22. Digital mammography. Radiology. 2005 Feb; 234(2):353-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.213
  23. 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: 0.206
  24. 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: 0.168
  25. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology. 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.157
  26. 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: 0.155
  27. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2000 Apr; 7(4):266-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.152
  28. 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: 0.151
  29. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2000 Jan; 214(1):26-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.150
  30. 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: 0.148
  31. Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality. Acad Radiol. 1999 Aug; 6(8):464-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.145
  32. 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: 0.138
  33. Is Tomosynthesis the Future of Breast Cancer Screening? Radiology. 2018 04; 287(1):47-48.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.133
  34. 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: 0.129
  35. 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: 0.110
  36. 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: 0.077
  37. Diffraction-enhanced imaging of musculoskeletal tissues using a conventional x-ray tube. Acad Radiol. 2009 Aug; 16(8):918-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.073
  38. Characterization of diffraction-enhanced imaging contrast in breast cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2009 May 21; 54(10):3247-56.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  39. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.071
  40. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST. Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  41. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability? Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  42. 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: 0.066
  43. 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: 0.060
  44. 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: 0.059
  45. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys. 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  46. 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: 0.057
  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: 0.056
  48. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol. 2005 May; 12(5):585-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  49. Mass density images from the diffraction enhanced imaging technique. Med Phys. 2005 Feb; 32(2):549-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  50. 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: 0.051
  51. 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: 0.046
  52. 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: 0.046
  53. 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: 0.044
  54. 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: 0.043
  55. Diffraction enhanced x-ray imaging. Phys Med Biol. 1997 Nov; 42(11):2015-25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  56. 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: 0.031
  57. 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: 0.026
  58. Detection of arterial calcification in mammograms by random walks. Inf Process Med Imaging. 2009; 21:713-24.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  59. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 01; 148(1):1-10.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  60. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  61. 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: 0.014
  62. Future directions in imaging of breast diseases. Radiology. 1998 Feb; 206(2):297-300.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  63. Mammographic phantom studies with synchrotron radiation. Radiology. 1996 Sep; 200(3):659-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  64. Computed tomography interpretations with a low-cost workstation: a timing study. J Digit Imaging. 1994 Aug; 7(3):133-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
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.