AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hardesty, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Gur, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hardesty, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Gur, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Is Maximum Positive Predictive Value a Good Indicator of an Optimal Screening Mammography Practice?

Lara A. Hardesty1, Amy H. Klym, Betty E. Shindel, Denise M. Chough, Jules H. Sumkin and David Gur

1 All authors: Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee Women's Hospital, 300 Halket St., Ste. 4200, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.



View larger version (7K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. —Graph shows three possible models of the relationship between sensitivity and recall rates given an assumed technology-based upper limit of sensitivity for mammography at 90%: linear ({diamondsuit}), convex ({blacksquare}), and sigmoidal ({blacktriangleup}).

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.