87 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10063863)
1. Motion artifact seen on slot-scanning direct digital mammography.
Boyle ER; Pak D; Williams JB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Mar; 172(3):697-701. PubMed ID: 10063863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].
Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W
Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Direct digital magnification mammography with a large-surface detector made of amorphous silicon].
Hermann KP; Hundertmark C; Funke M; von Brenndorff A; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1999 May; 170(5):503-6. PubMed ID: 10370416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Experiences with phantom measurements in different mammographic systems].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Lell M; Kuchar I; Bautz W
Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1243-6. PubMed ID: 12375196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Solari M; Barke L; Reddy D; Wolfman J; Segal L; DeLeon P; Benjamin S; Willis L
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):38-41. PubMed ID: 16794152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector.
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a low-contrast phantom.
Krug KB; Stützer H; Schröder R; Boecker J; Poggenborg J; Lackner K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Sep; 191(3):W80-8. PubMed ID: 18716083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Near monochromatic X-rays for digital slot-scan mammography: initial findings.
Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Richter K; Bick U; Fischer T; Lawaczeck R; Press WR; Schön K; Weinmann HJ; Arkadiev V; Bjeoumikhov A; Langhoff N; Rabe J; Roth P; Tilgner J; Wedell R; Krumrey M; Linke U; Ulm G; Hamm B
Eur Radiol; 2004 Sep; 14(9):1641-6. PubMed ID: 15232713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Storage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography--a phantom study.
Funke M; Breiter N; Hermann KP; Oestmann JW; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 1998 May; 71(845):528-34. PubMed ID: 9691898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography.
Feig SA; Yaffe MJ
Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1205-30. PubMed ID: 7480666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms.
Undrill PE; O'Kane AD; Gilbert FJ
Clin Radiol; 2000 Oct; 55(10):782-90. PubMed ID: 11052880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with conventional screen film system (SFS), digital phosphor storage plate in/without magnification technique (CR) and digital CCD-technique (CCD).
Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Säbel M; Böhner C; Dobritz M; Wenkel E; Bautz W
Rontgenpraxis; 2001; 54(4):123-6. PubMed ID: 11883115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of detector dynamic range in the x-ray exposure domain in mammography: a comparison between film-screen and flat panel detector systems.
Cooper VN; Oshiro T; Cagnon CH; Bassett LW; McLeod-Stockmann TM; Bezrukiy NV
Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2614-21. PubMed ID: 14596297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Artifacts in digital mammography.
Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Bosmans H
JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):262-3. PubMed ID: 19203002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Monte-Carlo simulation of a slot-scanning digital mammography system for tomosynthesis.
Kulkarni M; Dendere R; Nicolls F; Douglas TS
J Xray Sci Technol; 2016; 24(2):191-206. PubMed ID: 27002901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radiologists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs.
Floyd CE; Baker JA; Chotas HG; Delong DM; Ravin CE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1353-8. PubMed ID: 7484562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of scatter and an antiscatter grid on the performance of a slot-scanning digital mammography system.
Shen SZ; Bloomquist AK; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ; Elbakri I
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1108-15. PubMed ID: 16696488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital mammography system problem.
Peart O
Radiol Technol; 2011; 82(6):569-70. PubMed ID: 21771940
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [A comparison between traditional mammography and digital with storage phosphors].
Lambruschi G; Tagliagambe A; Palla L; Torri T; D'Alessandro F; Pastori R; Barbieri L
Radiol Med; 1993; 85(1-2):59-64. PubMed ID: 8480050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Unusual artifact with mammography film.
Hedrick WR; Poulton TB; Starchman DE; Tobias TE
Radiology; 1998 Mar; 206(3):835-7. PubMed ID: 9494510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
