213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14596297)
1. Evaluation of detector dynamic range in the x-ray exposure domain in mammography: a comparison between film-screen and flat panel detector systems.
Cooper VN; Oshiro T; Cagnon CH; Bassett LW; McLeod-Stockmann TM; Bezrukiy NV
Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2614-21. PubMed ID: 14596297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging.
Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography at different exposure doses versus mammography film: possibility of radiation dose reduction in detecting rheumatologic bone defects.
Zähringer M; Reineck S; Perniok A; Krüger K; Andermahr J; Rubbert A; Winnekendonk G
Acta Radiol; 2008 Mar; 49(2):157-66. PubMed ID: 18300139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. On the noise variance of a digital mammography system.
Burgess A
Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):1987-95. PubMed ID: 15305451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Near monochromatic X-rays for digital slot-scan mammography: initial findings.
Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Richter K; Bick U; Fischer T; Lawaczeck R; Press WR; Schön K; Weinmann HJ; Arkadiev V; Bjeoumikhov A; Langhoff N; Rabe J; Roth P; Tilgner J; Wedell R; Krumrey M; Linke U; Ulm G; Hamm B
Eur Radiol; 2004 Sep; 14(9):1641-6. PubMed ID: 15232713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Contrast-detail detectability analysis: comparison of a digital spot mammography system and an analog screen-film mammography system.
Liu H; Fajardo LL; Barrett JR; Baxter RA
Acad Radiol; 1997 Mar; 4(3):197-203. PubMed ID: 9084777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Objective assessment of image quality in conventional and digital mammography taking into account dynamic range.
Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):380-2. PubMed ID: 15933141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
