235 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15839353)
1. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek R; Romanyukha A
Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics.
Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Study of digital mammographic equipments by phantom image quality.
Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():1994-6. PubMed ID: 17946081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Investigation of the performance of digital mammographic X-ray equipment: determination of noise equivalent quanta (NEQQC) and detective quantum efficiency (DQEQC) compared with the automated analysis of CDMAM test images with CDCOM and CDIC programs.
Loos C; Buhr H; Blendl C
Rofo; 2013 Jul; 185(7):635-43. PubMed ID: 23801376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Qualitative JPEG 2000 compression in digital mammography - evaluation using 480 mammograms of the CDMAM phantom.
Schreiter NF; Steffen IG; Miller J; Fallenberg E; Poellinger A; Bick U; Diekmann F
Rofo; 2011 Jul; 183(7):650-7. PubMed ID: 21667423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms.
Gagne RM; Gallas BD; Myers KJ
Med Phys; 2006 Jan; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Validation of a digital mammographic unit model for an objective and highly automated clinical image quality assessment.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2013 Aug; 35(8):1089-96; discussion 1089. PubMed ID: 23207102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
Segui JA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Quantification of image quality using information theory.
Niimi T; Maeda H; Ikeda M; Imai K
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2011 Dec; 34(4):481-8. PubMed ID: 22083504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis.
Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Campanini R; Bertolini M; Borasi G; Nitrosi A; Danielli C; Angelini L; Maggi S
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4198-209. PubMed ID: 17153399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Analysis of the threshold image contrast obtained with the CDMAM 3.4 and CDMAM 4.0 phantoms.
Biegała M; Jakubowska T; Stępińska A; Woźniak P
Phys Eng Sci Med; 2023 Jun; 46(2):897-902. PubMed ID: 37185808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Analysis of digital image quality indexes for CIRS SP01 and CDMAM 3.4 mammographic phantoms.
Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2008; 2008():418-21. PubMed ID: 19162682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
