These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Practical application of a scan-rotate equalization geometry to mammography. Sabol JM; Soutar IC; Plewes DB Med Phys; 1996 Dec; 23(12):1987-96. PubMed ID: 8994163 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Design and evaluation of an external filter technique for exposure equalization in mammography. Keshavmurthy SP; Goodsitt MM; Chan HP; Helvie MA; Christodoulou E Med Phys; 1999 Aug; 26(8):1655-69. PubMed ID: 10501065 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Observer performance and dose efficiency of mammographic scanning equalization radiography. Sabol JM; Soutar IC; Plewes DB Med Phys; 1993; 20(5):1517-25. PubMed ID: 8289736 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A digital density equalization technique to improve visualization of breast periphery in mammography. Stefanoyiannis AP; Costaridou L; Sakellaropoulos P; Panayiotakis G Br J Radiol; 2000 Apr; 73(868):410-20. PubMed ID: 10844867 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
9. Subjective evaluation of image quality based on images obtained with a breast tissue phantom: comparison with a conventional image quality phantom. Olsen JB; Sager EM Br J Radiol; 1995 Feb; 68(806):160-4. PubMed ID: 7735746 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Intra- and interobserver agreement and performance score of breast phantom image interpretation: influence of ambient room lighting levels. Koyama K; Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Muramoto H; Satake H; Sawaki A; Kato K; Fukushima H; Ishigaki T Nagoya J Med Sci; 2006 Jun; 68(3-4):147-53. PubMed ID: 16967781 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Mammography dosimetry using an in-house developed polymethyl methacrylate phantom. Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS; Chourasiya G Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(2):379-85. PubMed ID: 22232773 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
17. [Dosimetric and qualitative evaluations of the use of rhodium filtration in mammography]. Burke P; Luparia E; Frigerio A; Marra V; Milani R; Di Benedetto A; Simeone F Radiol Med; 1994 Sep; 88(3):295-300. PubMed ID: 7938738 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]