164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17985642)
1. 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]
2. Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance.
Samei E; Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):396-404. PubMed ID: 17356178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Digital mammography: comparative performance of color LCD and monochrome CRT displays.
Samei E; Poolla A; Ulissey MJ; Lewin JM
Acad Radiol; 2007 May; 14(5):539-46. PubMed ID: 17434067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. ROC study of the effect of stereoscopic imaging on assessment of breast lesions.
Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski LM; Lydick JT; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Nees A; Blane CE; Sahiner B
Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1001-9. PubMed ID: 15895583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies.
Ruschin M; Timberg P; Båth M; Hemdal B; Svahn T; Saunders RS; Samei E; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Chakrabort DP; Tingber A
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):400-7. PubMed ID: 17388156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.
Gur D; Abrams GS; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Perrin RL; Rathfon GY; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Bandos AI
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):586-91. PubMed ID: 19620460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. LCD versus CRT monitors for digital mammography: a comparison of observer performance for the detection of clustered microcalcifications and masses.
Cha JH; Moon WK; Cho N; Lee EH; Park JS; Jang MJ
Acta Radiol; 2009 Dec; 50(10):1104-8. PubMed ID: 19922305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis.
Chawla AS; Samei E; Saunders R; Abbey C; Delong D
Med Phys; 2007 Aug; 34(8):3385-98. PubMed ID: 17879801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. The influence of increased ambient lighting on mass detection in mammograms.
Pollard BJ; Samei E; Chawla AS; Baker J; Ghate S; Kim C; Soo MS; Hashimoto N
Acad Radiol; 2009 Mar; 16(3):299-304. PubMed ID: 19201358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer: an overview.
Van Ongeval Ch
JBR-BTR; 2007; 90(3):163-6. PubMed ID: 17696081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Visibility of microcalcification clusters and masses in breast tomosynthesis image volumes and digital mammography: a 4AFC human observer study.
Timberg P; Baath M; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Ruschin M
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2431-7. PubMed ID: 22559613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic backgrounds.
Reiser I; Nishikawa RM
Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):2905-11. PubMed ID: 16964867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
