284 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10036663)
21. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.
Bernhardt P; Mertelmeier T; Hoheisel M
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4337-49. PubMed ID: 17153413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Investigation of detector uniformity issues for Siemens Inspiration systems.
Baldelli P; Keavey E; Manley M; Power G; Phelan N
Phys Med; 2020 Jan; 69():262-268. PubMed ID: 31927263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of scatter rejection and low-contrast performance of scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR), slot-scan digital radiography, and full-field digital radiography systems for chest phantom imaging.
Liu X; Shaw CC; Lai CJ; Wang T
Med Phys; 2011 Jan; 38(1):23-33. PubMed ID: 21361171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Improved image quality of cone beam CT scans for radiotherapy image guidance using fiber-interspaced antiscatter grid.
Stankovic U; van Herk M; Ploeger LS; Sonke JJ
Med Phys; 2014 Jun; 41(6):061910. PubMed ID: 24877821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x-ray imaging.
Gislason AJ; Davies AG; Cowen AR
Med Phys; 2010 Oct; 37(10):5258-69. PubMed ID: 21089760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Quality of images acquired with and without grid in digital mammography.
Al Khalifah KH; Brindhaban A; Saeed RA
Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 24190611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Automatic technique parameter selection on a digital mammography system: an evaluation of SNR and CNR as a function of AGD on a GE senographe DS.
Thomson FJ
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2006 Sep; 29(3):251-6. PubMed ID: 17058586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Effect of area x-ray beam equalization on image quality and dose in digital mammography.
Wong J; Xu T; Husain A; Le H; Molloi S
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Aug; 49(16):3539-57. PubMed ID: 15446786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. X-ray scattering in full-field digital mammography.
Nykänen K; Siltanen S
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1864-73. PubMed ID: 12906205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Screen-film mammographic technique for breast cancer screening.
Stanton L; Day JL; Villafana T; Miller CH; Lightfoot DA
Radiology; 1987 May; 163(2):471-9. PubMed ID: 3562829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
