285 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10036663)
41. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system.
Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Workman A; Yip M; Wells K; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics.
Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Evaluation of automated CDMAM readings for non-standard CDMAM imaging conditions: grid-less acquisitions and scatter correction.
Binst J; Sterckx B; Bemelmans F; Cockmartin L; Van Peteghem N; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):350-3. PubMed ID: 25821214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Calibrated breast density methods for full field digital mammography: a system for serial quality control and inter-system generalization.
Lu B; Smallwood AM; Sellers TA; Drukteinis JS; Heine JJ; Fowler EE
Med Phys; 2015 Feb; 42(2):623-36. PubMed ID: 25652480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.
Peters S; Hellmich M; Stork A; Kemper J; Grinstein O; Püsken M; Stahlhut L; Kinner S; Maintz D; Krug KB
Invest Radiol; 2017 Apr; 52(4):206-215. PubMed ID: 27861206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography.
Nishino TK; Wu X; Johnson RF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):960-3. PubMed ID: 16177415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.
Ranger NT; Lo JY; Samei E
Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):962-9. PubMed ID: 20384232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Phantom study to evaluate contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography with a full-field indirect-detection system.
Palma BA; Rosado-Méndez I; Villaseñor Y; Brandan ME
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):577-89. PubMed ID: 20229866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. ITERATIVE SCATTER CORRECTION FOR GRID-LESS BEDSIDE CHEST RADIOGRAPHY: PERFORMANCE FOR A CHEST PHANTOM.
Mentrup D; Jockel S; Menser B; Neitzel U
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2016 Jun; 169(1-4):308-12. PubMed ID: 26487750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector.
Saunders RS; Samei E; Jesneck JL; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):588-99. PubMed ID: 15789606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging.
Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Computerized evaluation of mammographic image quality using phantom images.
Dougherty G
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 1998; 22(5):365-73. PubMed ID: 9890181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Scatter rejection in multislit digital mammography.
Aslund M; Cederström B; Lundqvist M; Danielsson M
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):933-40. PubMed ID: 16696469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. A novel technique for determination of two dimensional signal-to-noise ratio improvement factor of an antiscatter grid in digital radiography.
Nøtthellen J; Konst B; Abildgaard A
Phys Med Biol; 2014 Aug; 59(15):4213-25. PubMed ID: 25017397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. The first trial of phase contrast imaging for digital full-field mammography using a practical molybdenum x-ray tube.
Tanaka T; Honda C; Matsuo S; Noma K; Oohara H; Nitta N; Ota S; Tsuchiya K; Sakashita Y; Yamada A; Yamasaki M; Furukawa A; Takahashi M; Murata K
Invest Radiol; 2005 Jul; 40(7):385-96. PubMed ID: 15973129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
