Literature DB >> 20574083

BI-RADS data should not be used to estimate ROC curves.

Yulei Jiang1, Charles E Metz.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2010        PMID： 20574083      PMCID： PMC2897690          DOI： 10.1148/radiol.10091394

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN： 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


× No keyword cloud information.
  5 in total

1.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review.

Authors:  Robert F Wagner; Charles E Metz; Gregory Campbell
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  The efficacy of diagnostic imaging.

Authors:  D G Fryback; J R Thornbury
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1991 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Carl D'Orsi; Eric A Berns; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; William E Barlow; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-04-05       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245
  5 in total
  14 in total

1.  US-guided diffuse optical tomography for breast lesions: the reliability of clinical experience.

Authors:  Min Jung Kim; Ji Youn Kim; Jung Hyun Youn; Myung Hyun Kim; Hye Ryoung Koo; Soo Jin Kim; Yu-Mee Sohn; Hee Jung Moon; Eun-Kyung Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Evaluating imaging and computer-aided detection and diagnosis devices at the FDA.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Heang-Ping Chan; Carl J D'Orsi; Lori E Dodd; Maryellen L Giger; David Gur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Charles E Metz; Kyle J Myers; Nancy A Obuchowski; Berkman Sahiner; Alicia Y Toledano; Margarita L Zuley
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Pre- and post-contrast versus post-contrast cone-beam breast CT: can we reduce radiation exposure while maintaining diagnostic accuracy?

Authors:  Johannes Uhlig; Uwe Fischer; Lorenz Biggemann; Joachim Lotz; Susanne Wienbeck
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.

Authors:  Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz; Kristina Lång; Albert Gubern-Merida; Mireille Broeders; Gisella Gennaro; Paola Clauser; Thomas H Helbich; Margarita Chevalier; Tao Tan; Thomas Mertelmeier; Matthew G Wallis; Ingvar Andersson; Sophia Zackrisson; Ritse M Mann; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Optimal Policies for Reducing Unnecessary Follow-up Mammography Exams in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Decis Anal       Date:  2013-09

7.  Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT): clinical performance compared to mammography and MRI.

Authors:  Susanne Wienbeck; Uwe Fischer; Susanne Luftner-Nagel; Joachim Lotz; Johannes Uhlig
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Dose and diagnostic performance comparison between phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation and digital mammography: a clinical study report.

Authors:  Christian Fedon; Luigi Rigon; Fulvia Arfelli; Diego Dreossi; Elisa Quai; Maura Tonutti; Giuliana Tromba; Maria Assunta Cova; Renata Longo
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-02-01

9.  Comparison of Breast MRI Tumor Classification Using Human-Engineered Radiomics, Transfer Learning From Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, and Fusion Methods.

Authors:  Heather M Whitney; Hui Li; Yu Ji; Peifang Liu; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 10.961

10.  Independent value of image fusion in unenhanced breast MRI using diffusion-weighted and morphological T2-weighted images for lesion characterization in patients with recently detected BI-RADS 4/5 x-ray mammography findings.

Authors:  Sebastian Bickelhaupt; Jana Tesdorff; Frederik Bernd Laun; Tristan Anselm Kuder; Wolfgang Lederer; Susanne Teiner; Klaus Maier-Hein; Heidi Daniel; Anne Stieber; Stefan Delorme; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 5.315
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.