185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16177415)
1. Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography.
Nishino TK; Wu X; Johnson RF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):960-3. PubMed ID: 16177415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Automatic technique parameter selection on a digital mammography system: an evaluation of SNR and CNR as a function of AGD on a GE senographe DS.
Thomson FJ
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2006 Sep; 29(3):251-6. PubMed ID: 17058586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom.
Tzamicha E; Yakoumakis E; Tsalafoutas IA; Dimitriadis A; Georgiou E; Tsapaki V; Chalazonitis A
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):785-91. PubMed ID: 25900891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh, and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography.
Gingold EL; Wu X; Barnes GT
Radiology; 1995 Jun; 195(3):639-44. PubMed ID: 7753987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Radiation dose evaluation in a photon-counting digital mammography unit].
Matsubara K; Matsumoto C; Mochiya Y; Toda K; Noto K; Koshida K
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2014 May; 70(5):445-52. PubMed ID: 24858289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
Engelken FJ; Meyer H; Juran R; Bick U; Fallenberg E; Diekmann F
Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Breast composition and radiographic breast equivalence.
McLean D
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1997 Mar; 20(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 9141308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
Dance DR; Thilander AK; Sandborg M; Skinner CL; Castellano IA; Carlsson GA
Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1056-67. PubMed ID: 11271898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Towards standardization of x-ray beam filters in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Monte Carlo simulations and analytical modelling.
Shrestha S; Vedantham S; Karellas A
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 62(5):1969-1993. PubMed ID: 28075335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography.
Wu X; Gingold EL; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
Radiology; 1994 Oct; 193(1):83-9. PubMed ID: 8090926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
