198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12139090)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Impact of using the new American College of Radiology digital mammography phantom on quality survey in modern digital mammography systems: Evidence from nationwide surveys in Taiwan.
Hwang YS; Tsai HY; Lin YY; Liao YL
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Aug; 117():9-14. PubMed ID: 31307658
[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. Quality of images acquired with and without grid in digital mammography.
Al Khalifah KH; Brindhaban A; Saeed RA
Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 24190611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Dose sensitivity of three phantoms used for quality assurance in digital mammography.
Figl M; Semturs F; Kaar M; Hoffmann R; Kaldarar H; Homolka P; Mostbeck G; Scholz B; Hummel J
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Jan; 58(2):N13-23. PubMed ID: 23257608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Effect of exposure factors on image quality in screening mammography.
Alkhalifah K; Brindabhan A; Alsaeed R
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):e99-e102. PubMed ID: 28965911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Optimal technique factors for magnification mammography.
Huda W; Steinbach BG; Geiser WR; Belden CJ
Invest Radiol; 1997 Jul; 32(7):378-81. PubMed ID: 9228602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose.
Alkhalifah K; Brindhaban A
Med Princ Pract; 2018; 27(3):211-216. PubMed ID: 29514152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography.
McParland BJ
Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1068-77. PubMed ID: 11271899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing.
Baydush AH; Floyd CE
Med Phys; 2000 Jul; 27(7):1503-8. PubMed ID: 10947253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis.
Al Khalifah K; Brindabhan A; Mathew M; Davidson R
J Allied Health; 2019; 48(1):e15-e19. PubMed ID: 30826837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Effect of radiographic techniques (kVp and mAs) on image quality and patient doses in digital subtraction angiography.
Gkanatsios NA; Huda W; Peters KR
Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1643-50. PubMed ID: 12201409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
