185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16177415)
21. Evaluation of dual-energy subtraction of digital mammography images under conditions found in a commercial unit.
Brandan ME; Ramírez-R V
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(9):2307-20. PubMed ID: 16625044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Suitability of new anode materials in mammography: dose and subject contrast considerations using Monte Carlo simulation.
Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4221-35. PubMed ID: 17153401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Dosimetric and image quality comparison of two digital mammography units with different target/filter combinations: Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh, W/Rh, W/Ag.
Emanuelli S; Rizzi E; Amerio S; Fasano C; Cesarani F
Radiol Med; 2011 Mar; 116(2):310-8. PubMed ID: 21225367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Phantom study to evaluate contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography with a full-field indirect-detection system.
Palma BA; Rosado-Méndez I; Villaseñor Y; Brandan ME
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):577-89. PubMed ID: 20229866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Optimization of x-ray spectra in digital mammography through Monte Carlo simulations.
Cunha DM; Tomal A; Poletti ME
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1919-35. PubMed ID: 22421418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Variations in breast doses for an automatic mammography unit.
Bor D; Tükel S; Olgar T; Aydin E
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2008 Sep; 14(3):122-6. PubMed ID: 18814131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography.
Young KC; Oduko JM; Bosmans H; Nijs K; Martinez L
Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79(948):981-90. PubMed ID: 17213303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Simulation study of a quasi-monochromatic beam for x-ray computed mammotomography.
McKinley RL; Tornai MP; Samei E; Bradshaw ML
Med Phys; 2004 Apr; 31(4):800-13. PubMed ID: 15124997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Applicability of ACR breast dosimetry methodology to a digital mammography system.
Tomon JJ; Johnson TE; Swenson KN; Schauer DA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):799-807. PubMed ID: 16878582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Screen-film mammographic technique for breast cancer screening.
Stanton L; Day JL; Villafana T; Miller CH; Lightfoot DA
Radiology; 1987 May; 163(2):471-9. PubMed ID: 3562829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms.
Dance DR; Hunt RA; Bakic PR; Maidment AD; Sandborg M; Ullman G; Alm Carlsson G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):359-63. PubMed ID: 15933137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography: dependence on anode material, breast thickness, and lesion type.
Fahrig R; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 1994 Sep; 21(9):1473-81. PubMed ID: 7838059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.
Ranger NT; Lo JY; Samei E
Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):962-9. PubMed ID: 20384232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images.
Chakraborty DP
J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 10036663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. [Comparison of Contrast to Noise Ratio and Signal Difference to Noise Ratio Based on QA and QC Guidelines in CR Mammography].
Nagami A; Ishii M; Ishii R; Kodama S; Sanada T; Yoshida A
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2016 Jun; 72(6):503-13. PubMed ID: 27320154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
