117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11814221)
1. A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices used for small field digital mammography.
Evans DS; Workman A; Payne M
Phys Med Biol; 2002 Jan; 47(1):117-35. PubMed ID: 11814221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Visibility of simulated microcalcifications--a hardcopy-based comparison of three mammographic systems.
Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Whitman GJ; Johnston DA; Yang WT; Selinko V; Arribas E; Dogan B; Kappadath SC
Med Phys; 2005 Jan; 32(1):182-94. PubMed ID: 15719969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Analysis of the spatial-frequency-dependent DQE of optically coupled digital mammography detectors.
Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 1994 Jun; 21(6):721-9. PubMed ID: 7935207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A slot-scanned photodiode-array/CCD hybrid detector for digital mammography.
Mainprize JG; Ford NL; Yin S; Tümer T; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2002 Feb; 29(2):214-25. PubMed ID: 11865992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An investigation of the imaging characteristics of the Y2O2S:Eu3+ phosphor for application in X-ray detectors of digital mammography.
Cavouras D; Kandarakis I; Panayiotakis GS; Kanellopoulos E; Triantis D; Nomicos CD
Appl Radiat Isot; 1998 Aug; 49(8):931-7. PubMed ID: 9650263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. System considerations in CCD-based x-ray imaging for digital chest radiography and digital mammography.
Hejazi S; Trauernicht DP
Med Phys; 1997 Feb; 24(2):287-97. PubMed ID: 9048370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mammographic imaging with a small format CCD-based digital cassette: physical characteristics of a clinical system.
Vedantham S; Karellas A; Suryanarayanan S; Levis I; Sayag M; Kleehammer R; Heidsieck R; D'Orsi CJ
Med Phys; 2000 Aug; 27(8):1832-40. PubMed ID: 10984230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. MTF evaluation of a phosphor-coated CCD for x-ray imaging.
Gambaccini M; Taibi A; Del Guerra A; Marziani M; Tuffanelli A
Phys Med Biol; 1996 Dec; 41(12):2799-806. PubMed ID: 8971970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of signal propagation in optically coupled detectors for digital mammography: I. Phosphor screens.
Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 1995 May; 40(5):877-89. PubMed ID: 7652013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems.
Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Guntern D; Verdun FR
Med Phys; 2007 Mar; 34(3):906-14. PubMed ID: 17441236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Charge-coupled device detector: performance considerations and potential for small-field mammographic imaging applications.
Karellas A; Harris LJ; Liu H; Davis MA; D'Orsi CJ
Med Phys; 1992; 19(4):1015-23. PubMed ID: 1518463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. [Experimental studies on image quality in conventional film screen system, digital phosphor storage plate mammography in mangnification technique and digital mammography in CCD-technique].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Säbel M; Böhner C; Dobritz M; Bautz W
Rofo; 2000 Dec; 172(12):965-8. PubMed ID: 11199438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Signal-to-noise ratio and detective quantum efficiency analysis of optically coupled CCD mammography imaging systems.
Liu H; Fajardo LL; Penny BC
Acad Radiol; 1996 Oct; 3(10):799-805. PubMed ID: 8923898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The imaging performance of compact Lu2O3:Eu powdered phosphor screens: Monte Carlo simulation for applications in mammography.
Liaparinos PF; Kandarakis IS
Med Phys; 2009 Jun; 36(6):1985-97. PubMed ID: 19610287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
Boyce SJ; Samei E
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).
Rong XJ; Shaw CC; Johnston DA; Lemacks MR; Liu X; Whitman GJ; Dryden MJ; Stephens TW; Thompson SK; Krugh KT; Lai CJ
Med Phys; 2002 Sep; 29(9):2052-61. PubMed ID: 12349926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Analysis of signal propagation in optically coupled detectors for digital mammography: II. Lens and fibre optics.
Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 1996 Mar; 41(3):475-93. PubMed ID: 8778827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
