202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17696080)
1. Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems: first experiences within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme.
Thierens H; Bosmans H; Buls N; Bacher K; De Hauwere A; Jacobs J; Clerinx P
JBR-BTR; 2007; 90(3):159-62. PubMed ID: 17696080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [The quality of digital mammograms. Development and use of phantoms for optimal safety].
Schöfer H; Kotsianos D; Wirth S; Britsch S; Reiser M
Radiologe; 2005 Mar; 45(3):278-85. PubMed ID: 15747150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A multiparametric automatic method to monitor long-term reproducibility in digital mammography: results from a regional screening programme.
Gennaro G; Ballaminut A; Contento G
Eur Radiol; 2017 Sep; 27(9):3776-3787. PubMed ID: 28130611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Digital detectors in mammography. A technological overview.
Dhaenens F
JBR-BTR; 2000 Apr; 83(2):84-7. PubMed ID: 10859905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Current challenges of full field digital mammography.
Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H; Van Steen A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):148-53. PubMed ID: 16461520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of equipment performance, patient dose, imaging quality, and diagnostic coincidence in five Mexico City mammography services.
Brandan ME; Ruiz-Trejo C; Verdejo-Silva M; Guevara M; Lozano-Zalce H; Madero-Preciado L; Martín J; Noel-Etienne LM; Ramírez-Arias JL; Soto J; Villaseñor Y
Arch Med Res; 2004; 35(1):24-30. PubMed ID: 15036796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria.
Hemdal B; Andersson I; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Båth M; Börjesson S; Medin J; Tingberg A; Månsson LG; Mattsson S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):383-8. PubMed ID: 15933142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Should processed or raw image data be used in mammographic image quality analyses? A comparative study of three full-field digital mammography systems.
Borg M; Badr I; Royle G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jan; 163(1):102-17. PubMed ID: 24692583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Confrontation of mammography systems in flanders with the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in mammography screening. Analysis of initial results.
Bosmans H; Carton AK; Deprez T; Rogge F; Van Steen A; Van Limbergen E; Marchal G
JBR-BTR; 1999 Dec; 82(6):288-93. PubMed ID: 10670170
[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. Conversion factors between human and automatic readouts of CDMAM phantom images of CR mammography systems.
Figl M; Homolka P; Osanna-Elliott A; Semturs F; Kaar M; Hummel J
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Sep; 61(18):N514-N521. PubMed ID: 27580001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview.
Bosmans H; Carton AK; Rogge F; Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Nijs K; Van Steen A; Marchal G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):120-30. PubMed ID: 16461531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms.
Gagne RM; Gallas BD; Myers KJ
Med Phys; 2006 Jan; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A Pilot Study on the Development of Remote Quality Control of Digital Mammography Systems in the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Looney P; Halling-Brown MD; Oduko JM; Young KC
J Digit Imaging; 2015 Oct; 28(5):586-93. PubMed ID: 25582530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluating clinical implications of 15-mega-sub-pixel liquid-crystal display in phase-contrast mammography.
Takane Y; Kawasumi Y; Sato M; Horie T; Ishibashi T
Breast Cancer; 2016 Jul; 23(4):561-7. PubMed ID: 25851738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
