58 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11249085)
1. Evaluation of linear and nonlinear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods in digital mammography.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Baker SP; Glick SJ; D'Orsi CJ; Webber RL
Acad Radiol; 2001 Mar; 8(3):219-24. PubMed ID: 11249085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Glick SJ; D'Orsi CJ; Baker SP; Webber RL
Acad Radiol; 2000 Dec; 7(12):1085-97. PubMed ID: 11131053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A controlled evaluation of tuned-aperture computed tomography applied to digital spot mammography.
Webber RL; Underhill HR; Freimanis RI
J Digit Imaging; 2000 May; 13(2):90-7. PubMed ID: 10843254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Experimental phantom lesion detectability study using a digital breast tomosynthesis prototype system.
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Lell M; Böhner C; Bautz WA; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2006 Dec; 178(12):1219-23. PubMed ID: 17136645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Array-projection geometry and depth discrimination with Tuned-Aperture Computed Tomography for assessing the relationship between tooth roots and the inferior alveolar canal.
Morant RD; Eleazer PD; Scheetz JP; Farman AG
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Feb; 91(2):252-9. PubMed ID: 11174606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging.
Niklason LT; Christian BT; Niklason LE; Kopans DB; Castleberry DE; Opsahl-Ong BH; Landberg CE; Slanetz PJ; Giardino AA; Moore R; Albagli D; DeJule MC; Fitzgerald PF; Fobare DF; Giambattista BW; Kwasnick RF; Liu J; Lubowski SJ; Possin GE; Richotte JF; Wei CY; Wirth RF
Radiology; 1997 Nov; 205(2):399-406. PubMed ID: 9356620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography.
Yip WM; Pang SY; Yim WS; Kwok CS
Br J Radiol; 2001 Jul; 74(883):621-8. PubMed ID: 11509398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography.
Glueck DH; Lamb MM; Lewin JM; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2007 Jun; 14(6):670-6. PubMed ID: 17502256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Tuned-aperture computed tomography (TACT). Theory and application for three-dimensional dento-alveolar imaging.
Webber RL; Horton RA; Tyndall DA; Ludlow JB
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Jan; 26(1):53-62. PubMed ID: 9446991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [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]
14. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group.
Pisano ED; Cole EB; Major S; Zong S; Hemminger BM; Muller KE; Johnston RE; Walsh R; Conant E; Fajardo LL; Feig SA; Nishikawa RM; Yaffe MJ; Williams MB; Aylward SR
Radiology; 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30. PubMed ID: 10966717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of time-efficient reconstruction methods in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Svahn TM; Houssami N
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):331-6. PubMed ID: 25855075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Artificial Intelligence in Breast X-Ray Imaging.
Vedantham S; Shazeeb MS; Chiang A; Vijayaraghavan GR
Semin Ultrasound CT MR; 2023 Feb; 44(1):2-7. PubMed ID: 36792270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Breast Cancer Screening: Opportunities and Challenges with Fully 3D Tomographic X-Ray Imaging.
Vedantham S; Karellas A
Bridge (Wash D C); 2022; 52(1):33-42. PubMed ID: 35431425
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Dedicated cone-beam breast CT using laterally-shifted detector geometry: Quantitative analysis of feasibility for clinical translation.
Vedantham S; Tseng HW; Konate S; Shi L; Karellas A
J Xray Sci Technol; 2020; 28(3):405-426. PubMed ID: 32333575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A Prototype Intraoral Periapical Sensor with High Frame Rates for a 2.5D Periapical Radiography System.
Liao CW; Huang KJ; Chen JC; Kuo CW; Wu YY; Hsu JT
Appl Bionics Biomech; 2019; 2019():7987496. PubMed ID: 31178925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
