247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16370424)
1. AEC for scanning digital mammography based on variation of scan velocity.
Aslund M; Cederström B; Lundqvist M; Danielsson M
Med Phys; 2005 Nov; 32(11):3367-74. PubMed ID: 16370424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Michielsen K; Cockmartin L; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 43(9):5104. PubMed ID: 27587041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Using simple mathematical functions to simulate pathological structures--input for digital mammography clinical trial.
Ruschin M; Tingberg A; Båth M; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Hemdal B; Andersson I
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):424-31. PubMed ID: 15933150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Image quality of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: effects of projection-view distributions.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Goodsitt M; Carson PL; Hadjiiski L; Schmitz A; Eberhard JW; Claus BE
Med Phys; 2011 Oct; 38(10):5703-12. PubMed ID: 21992385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Analytical optimization of digital subtraction mammography with contrast medium using a commercial unit.
Rosado-Méndez I; Palma BA; Brandan ME
Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5544-57. PubMed ID: 19175112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Automatic exposure control for a slot scanning full field digital mammography system.
Elbakri IA; Lakshminarayanan AV; Tesic MM
Med Phys; 2005 Sep; 32(9):2763-70. PubMed ID: 16266089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3834-47. PubMed ID: 26133585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging: scatter and nonuniformity corrections.
Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2005 Nov; 32(11):3395-408. PubMed ID: 16372415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of a novel method of noise reduction using computer-simulated mammograms.
Tischenko O; Hoeschen C; Dance DR; Hunt RA; Maidment AD; Bakic PR
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):81-4. PubMed ID: 15933085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Monte Carlo performance on the x-ray converter thickness in digital mammography using software breast models.
Liaparinos P; Bliznakova K
Med Phys; 2012 Nov; 39(11):6638-51. PubMed ID: 23127058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography].
Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2000 Nov; 172(11):940-5. PubMed ID: 11142129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images.
Wu T; Stewart A; Stanton M; McCauley T; Phillips W; Kopans DB; Moore RH; Eberhard JW; Opsahl-Ong B; Niklason L; Williams MB
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):365-80. PubMed ID: 12674237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Using aluminum for scatter control in mammography: preliminary work using measurements of CNR and FOM.
Al Khalifah K; Davidson R; Zhou A
Radiol Phys Technol; 2020 Mar; 13(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 31749130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system.
Zhao B; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2008 May; 35(5):1978-87. PubMed ID: 18561674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
