301 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12811688)
1. [Dose reduction through gridless technique in digital full-field mammography].
Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Berzeg S; Bick U; Fischer T; Hamm B
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):769-74. PubMed ID: 12811688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. X-ray scattering in full-field digital mammography.
Nykänen K; Siltanen S
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1864-73. PubMed ID: 12906205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of scatter and an antiscatter grid on the performance of a slot-scanning digital mammography system.
Shen SZ; Bloomquist AK; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ; Elbakri I
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1108-15. PubMed ID: 16696488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography.
Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Karssemeijer N
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1712-8. PubMed ID: 12906188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector.
Carton AK; Acciavatti R; Kuo J; Maidment AD
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):920-8. PubMed ID: 19378752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Characterization of scatter in digital mammography from physical measurements.
Leon SM; Brateman LF; Wagner LK
Med Phys; 2014 Jun; 41(6):061901. PubMed ID: 24877812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects on image quality of a 2D antiscatter grid in x-ray digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience using the dual modality (x-ray and molecular) breast tomosynthesis scanner.
Patel T; Peppard H; Williams MB
Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1720. PubMed ID: 27036570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector.
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of automated CDMAM readings for non-standard CDMAM imaging conditions: grid-less acquisitions and scatter correction.
Binst J; Sterckx B; Bemelmans F; Cockmartin L; Van Peteghem N; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):350-3. PubMed ID: 25821214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Scatter rejection in multislit digital mammography.
Aslund M; Cederström B; Lundqvist M; Danielsson M
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):933-40. PubMed ID: 16696469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Relationship between detector size and the need for extra images and their effect on radiation exposure in digital mammography screening.
Entz K; Sommer A; Heindel W; Lenzen H
Rofo; 2014 Sep; 186(9):868-75. PubMed ID: 24563411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [First experiments for the detection of simulated mammographic lesions: digital full field mammography with a new detector with a double plate of pure selenium].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Adamietz B; Lell M; Anders K; Uder M
Radiologe; 2011 Feb; 51(2):130-4. PubMed ID: 21069512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a low-contrast phantom.
Krug KB; Stützer H; Schröder R; Boecker J; Poggenborg J; Lackner K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Sep; 191(3):W80-8. PubMed ID: 18716083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography.
Paulis LE; Lobbes MB; Lalji UC; Gelissen N; Bouwman RW; Wildberger JE; Jeukens CR
Invest Radiol; 2015 Oct; 50(10):679-85. PubMed ID: 26011823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Michielsen K; Cockmartin L; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 43(9):5104. PubMed ID: 27587041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
