278 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18283065)
1. Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
Muhogora WE; Devetti A; Padovani R; Msaki P; Bonutti F
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):231-6. PubMed ID: 18283065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of full field digital (FFD) and computed radiography (CR) mammography systems in Greece.
Kalathaki M; Hourdakis CJ; Economides S; Tritakis P; Kalyvas N; Simantirakis G; Manousaridis G; Kaisas I; Kamenopoulou V
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21821614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria.
Vassileva J; Avramova-Cholakova S; Dimov A; Lichev A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):403-5. PubMed ID: 15933146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose Mammography unit.
Hemdal B; Herrnsdorf L; Andersson I; Bengtsson G; Heddson B; Olsson M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):436-43. PubMed ID: 15933152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of dual-energy subtraction of digital mammography images under conditions found in a commercial unit.
Brandan ME; Ramírez-R V
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(9):2307-20. PubMed ID: 16625044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Quality assurance of computed and digital radiography systems.
Walsh C; Gorman D; Byrne P; Larkin A; Dowling A; Malone JF
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):271-5. PubMed ID: 18319281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3185-99. PubMed ID: 17505097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
Klausz R; Shramchenko N
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. A search for optimal x-ray spectra in iodine contrast media mammography.
Ullman G; Sandborg M; Dance DR; Yaffe M; Alm Carlsson G
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jul; 50(13):3143-52. PubMed ID: 15972986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mammography radiation dose: initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients.
Ciraj-Bjelac O; Beciric S; Arandjic D; Kosutic D; Kovacevic M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Jun; 140(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 20159918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Optimisation strategies introduced for CR at health care centres in Estonia.
Kepler K; Vladimirov A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):127-31. PubMed ID: 18252852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
