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.
169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11110258)
1. Breast imaging using an amorphous silicon-based full-field digital mammographic system: stability of a clinical prototype. Vedantham S; Karellas A; Suryanarayanan S; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE J Digit Imaging; 2000 Nov; 13(4):191-9. PubMed ID: 11110258 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Vedantham S; Karellas A; Suryanarayanan S; Albagli D; Han S; Tkaczyk EJ; Landberg CE; Opsahl-Ong B; Granfors PR; Levis I; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE Med Phys; 2000 Mar; 27(3):558-67. PubMed ID: 10757607 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Performance of a PSPMT based detector for scintimammography. Williams MB; Williams MB; Goode AR; Galbis-Reig V; Majewski S; Weisenberger AG; Wojcik R Phys Med Biol; 2000 Mar; 45(3):781-800. PubMed ID: 10730971 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Low dose high energy x-ray in-line phase sensitive imaging prototype: Investigation of optimal geometric conditions and design parameters. Ghani MU; Yan A; Wong MD; Li Y; Ren L; Wu X; Liu H J Xray Sci Technol; 2015; 23(6):667-82. PubMed ID: 26756405 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Full-field digital mammography with amorphous silicon-based flat- panel detector: physical imaging characteristics and signal detection]. Ideguchi T; Higashida Y; Himuro K; Ohki M; Nakamura S; Yoshida A; Takagi R; Hatano H; Kuwahara R; Toyonaga M; Tanaka I; Toyofuku F Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Mar; 60(3):399-405. PubMed ID: 15131510 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Amorphous In-Ga-Zn-O thin-film transistor active pixel sensor x-ray imager for digital breast tomosynthesis. Zhao C; Kanicki J Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091902. PubMed ID: 25186389 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Experimental validation of a three-dimensional linear system model for breast tomosynthesis. Zhao B; Zhou J; Hu YH; Mertelmeier T; Ludwig J; Zhao W Med Phys; 2009 Jan; 36(1):240-51. PubMed ID: 19235392 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images. Chakraborty DP Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1269-77. PubMed ID: 9284251 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography - Clinical results. Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Marten K; Kehbel S; Fischer U; Grabbe E Rofo; 2002 Jun; 174(6):696-9. PubMed ID: 12063597 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images. Chakraborty DP J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 10036663 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [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]
17. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A real-time flat-panel X-ray pixel imaging system for low-dose medical diagnostics and craniofacial applications. Chapuy S; Dimcovski D; Dimcovski Z; Grigoriev E; Grob E; Ligier Y; Pachoud M; Riondel F; Rüfenacht D; Sayegh C; Terrier F; Valley JF; Verdun FR J Craniofac Surg; 2000 Jan; 11(1):10-6. PubMed ID: 11314093 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Analysis of the detective quantum efficiency of a developmental detector for digital mammography. Williams MB; Simoni PU; Smilowitz L; Stanton M; Phillips W; Stewart A Med Phys; 1999 Nov; 26(11):2273-85. PubMed ID: 10587208 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]