152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15649091)
1. Image quality assessment via segmentation of breast lesion in X-ray and ultrasound phantom images from Fischer's full field digital mammography and ultrasound (FFDMUS) system.
Suri J; Guo Y; Coad C; Danielson T; Elbakri I; Janer R
Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2005 Feb; 4(1):83-92. PubMed ID: 15649091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Fischer's Fused Full Field Digital Mammography and Ultrasound System (FFDMUS).
Suri JS; Danielson T; Guo Y; Janer R
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2005; 114():177-200. PubMed ID: 15923774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Deformable mapping technique to correlate lesions in digital breast tomosynthesis and automated breast ultrasound images.
Green CA; Goodsitt MM; Brock KK; Davis CL; Larson ED; Lau JH; Carson PL
Med Phys; 2018 Oct; 45(10):4402-4417. PubMed ID: 30066340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Models of breast lesions based on three-dimensional X-ray breast images.
Dukov N; Bliznakova K; Feradov F; Buliev I; Bosmans H; Mettivier G; Russo P; Cockmartin L; Bliznakov Z
Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():80-87. PubMed ID: 30738536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Combining low-, high-level and empirical domain knowledge for automated segmentation of ultrasonic breast lesions.
Madabhushi A; Metaxas DN
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2003 Feb; 22(2):155-69. PubMed ID: 12715992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. X-ray properties of an anthropomorphic breast phantom for MRI and x-ray imaging.
Freed M; Badal A; Jennings RJ; de las Heras H; Myers KJ; Badano A
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jun; 56(12):3513-33. PubMed ID: 21606556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Calculation of strain images of a breast-mimicking phantom from 3D CT image data.
Kim JG; Aowlad Hossain AB; Shin JH; Lee SY
Med Phys; 2012 Sep; 39(9):5469-78. PubMed ID: 22957614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Stereotactic mammography imaging combined with 3D US imaging for image guided breast biopsy.
Surry KJ; Mills GR; Bevan K; Downey DB; Fenster A
Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4348-58. PubMed ID: 18072500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A dual-stage method for lesion segmentation on digital mammograms.
Yuan Y; Giger ML; Li H; Suzuki K; Sennett C
Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4180-93. PubMed ID: 18072482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Algorithmic scatter correction in dual-energy digital mammography.
Chen X; Nishikawa RM; Chan ST; Lau BA; Zhang L; Mou X
Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):111919. PubMed ID: 24320452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound.
Kapur A; Carson PL; Eberhard J; Goodsitt MM; Thomenius K; Lokhandwalla M; Buckley D; Roubidoux MA; Helvie MA; Booi RC; LeCarpentier GL; Erkamp RQ; Chan HP; Fowlkes JB; Thomas J; Landberg C
Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2004 Aug; 3(4):325-34. PubMed ID: 15270583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Computation of realistic virtual phantom images for an objective lesion detectability assessment in digital mammography.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2011 Dec; 33(10):1276-86. PubMed ID: 21741291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 3-D reconstruction of microcalcification clusters using stereo imaging: algorithm and mammographic unit calibration.
Daul C; Graebling P; Tiedeu A; Wolf D
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2005 Dec; 52(12):2058-73. PubMed ID: 16366229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.
Schueller G; Riedl CC; Mallek R; Eibenberger K; Langenberger H; Kaindl E; Kulinna-Cosentini C; Rudas M; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):487-96. PubMed ID: 17890036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
