190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17153399)
1. Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis.
Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Campanini R; Bertolini M; Borasi G; Nitrosi A; Danielli C; Angelini L; Maggi S
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4198-209. PubMed ID: 17153399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors.
Ghetti C; Borrini A; Ortenzia O; Rossi R; Ordóñez PL
Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 18383665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
Lazzari B; Belli G; Gori C; Rosselli Del Turco M
Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system.
Marshall NW; Lemmens K; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):811-24. PubMed ID: 22320791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of different computed radiography systems: physical characterization and contrast detail analysis.
Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Burani A; Acchiappati D
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):440-8. PubMed ID: 20229852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
Boyce SJ; Samei E
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. High-resolution imager for digital mammography: physical characterization of a prototype sensor.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Onishi SK
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Sep; 50(17):3957-69. PubMed ID: 16177523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography.
Borasi G; Nitrosi A; Ferrari P; Tassoni D
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1719-31. PubMed ID: 12906189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Physical and psychophysical characterization of a novel clinical system for digital mammography.
Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Bertolini M; Borasi G; Golinelli P; Acchiappati D; Gallo E
Med Phys; 2009 Nov; 36(11):5139-48. PubMed ID: 19994524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Study of DQE dependence with beam quality on GE essential mammography flat panel.
García-Mollá R; Linares R; Ayala R
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 12(1):3176. PubMed ID: 21330969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Physical characterization of a high-resolution CCD detector for mammography.
Elbakri IA; Tesic MM; Xiong Q
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Apr; 52(8):2171-83. PubMed ID: 17404462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the imaging properties of an amorphous selenium-based flat panel detector for digital fluoroscopy.
Hunt DC; Tousignant O; Rowlands JA
Med Phys; 2004 May; 31(5):1166-75. PubMed ID: 15191306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek R; Romanyukha A
Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems.
Marshall NW; Monnin P; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4201-20. PubMed ID: 21701051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. NPWE model observer as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis of digital detectors in general radiography.
Van Peteghem N; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Nov; 61(21):N575-N591. PubMed ID: 27754987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5655-73. PubMed ID: 17047276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
