415 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15933141)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.
Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Funke M; Grabbe EH
Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2188-91. PubMed ID: 12195468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Visibility of simulated microcalcifications--a hardcopy-based comparison of three mammographic systems.
Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Whitman GJ; Johnston DA; Yang WT; Selinko V; Arribas E; Dogan B; Kappadath SC
Med Phys; 2005 Jan; 32(1):182-94. PubMed ID: 15719969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].
Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W
Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507
[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. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3185-99. PubMed ID: 17505097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Storage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography--a phantom study.
Funke M; Breiter N; Hermann KP; Oestmann JW; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 1998 May; 71(845):528-34. PubMed ID: 9691898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control.
Carton AK; Vandenbroucke D; Struye L; Maidment AD; Kao YH; Albert M; Bosmans H; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1684-95. PubMed ID: 16013727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria.
Hemdal B; Andersson I; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Båth M; Börjesson S; Medin J; Tingberg A; Månsson LG; Mattsson S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):383-8. PubMed ID: 15933142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. [Digital storage phosphor mammography in a magnification technic: experimental studies for spatial resolution and for detection of microcalcifications].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Hundertmark C; Sachs J; Gruhl T; Sperner W; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1997 Aug; 167(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 9333359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A high-resolution voxel phantom of the breast for dose calculations in mammography.
Hoeschen C; Fill U; Zankl M; Panzer W; Regulla D; Döhring W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):406-9. PubMed ID: 15933147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [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]
19. Monte Carlo simulation of a mammographic test phantom.
Hunt RA; Dance DR; Pachoud M; Alm Carlsson G; Sandborg M; Ullman G; Verdun FR
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):432-5. PubMed ID: 15933151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
