128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17070453)
1. How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography?
Huda W; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR; Bertrand EA
Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1355-66. PubMed ID: 17070453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise.
Burgess AE; Jacobson FL; Judy PF
Med Phys; 2001 Apr; 28(4):419-37. PubMed ID: 11339738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In-plane visibility of lesions using breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.
Timberg P; Båth M; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Ruschin M
Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):5618-26. PubMed ID: 21158273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography.
Saunders RS; Samei E; Baker J; Delong D; Soo MS; Walsh R; Pisano E; Kuzmiak CM; Pavic D
Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26. PubMed ID: 17070449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Full-field digital mammography: dose-dependent detectability of breast lesions and microcalcinosis].
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Schorn C; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2000 Dec; 172(12):1052-6. PubMed ID: 11199434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection.
Webb LJ; Samei E; Lo JY; Baker JA; Ghate SV; Kim C; Soo MS; Walsh R
Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):1972-80. PubMed ID: 21626930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part I. Single-energy imaging.
Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Muller S; Ebrahimi M; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051910. PubMed ID: 23635280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Computation of realistic virtual phantom images for an objective lesion detectability assessment in digital mammography.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2011 Dec; 33(10):1276-86. PubMed ID: 21741291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms.
Ikejimba LC; Glick SJ; Choudhury KR; Samei E; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2016 Oct; 43(10):5593. PubMed ID: 27782687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [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]
12. Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Sechopoulos I; D'Orsi CJ
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):130-7. PubMed ID: 17522348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [First experiments for the detection of simulated mammographic lesions: digital full field mammography with a new detector with a double plate of pure selenium].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Adamietz B; Lell M; Anders K; Uder M
Radiologe; 2011 Feb; 51(2):130-4. PubMed ID: 21069512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Lesion size inaccuracies in digital mammography.
Paquelet JR; Hendrick RE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Jan; 194(1):W115-8. PubMed ID: 20028882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Dose reduction through gridless technique in digital full-field mammography].
Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Berzeg S; Bick U; Fischer T; Hamm B
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):769-74. PubMed ID: 12811688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance.
Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM; Johnson JP; Samei E
Med Phys; 2007 Oct; 34(10):3971-81. PubMed ID: 17985642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effects of lesion positioning on digital magnification mammography performance.
Liu F; Kanal KM; Stewart BK; Lehman CD
Acad Radiol; 2010 Jun; 17(6):791-4. PubMed ID: 20399685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The effect of background structure on the detection of low contrast objects in mammography.
Kotre CJ
Br J Radiol; 1998 Nov; 71(851):1162-7. PubMed ID: 10434911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
