154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18319279)
1. Clinical image quality criteria for full field digital mammography: a first practical application.
Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Geniets C; Dekeyzer F; Bosmans H; Marchal G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):265-70. PubMed ID: 18319279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Using a NPWE model observer to assess suitable image quality for a digital mammography quality assurance programme.
Monnin P; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):459-62. PubMed ID: 20395413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms.
Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Integrated wavelets for enhancement of microcalcifications in digital mammography.
Heinlein P; Drexl J; Schneider W
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2003 Mar; 22(3):402-13. PubMed ID: 12760557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The current status of digital mammography.
James JJ
Clin Radiol; 2004 Jan; 59(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 14697370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A quantitative method for evaluating the detectability of lesions in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):214-8. PubMed ID: 18319282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Noise equalization for detection of microcalcification clusters in direct digital mammogram images.
McLoughlin KJ; Bones PJ; Karssemeijer N
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2004 Mar; 23(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 15027524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Region-based wavelet coding methods for digital mammography.
Penedo M; Pearlman WA; Tahoces PG; Souto M; Vidal JJ
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2003 Oct; 22(10):1288-96. PubMed ID: 14552582
[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. [Improvement of detectability of microcalcifications by magnification digital mammography].
Higashida Y; Hatemura M; Yoshida A; Takada T; Takahashi M
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Aug; 58(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 9778932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Guideline for determining the mean glandular dose according to DIN 6868-162 and threshold contrast visibility according to the quality assurance guideline for digital mammography systems.
Sommer A; Schopphoven S; Land I; Blaser D; Sobczak T;
Rofo; 2014 May; 186(5):474-81. PubMed ID: 24557600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Quantification of breast arterial calcification using full field digital mammography.
Molloi S; Xu T; Ducote J; Iribarren C
Med Phys; 2008 Apr; 35(4):1428-39. PubMed ID: 18491538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The influence of anatomical noise on optimal beam quality in mammography.
Cederström B; Fredenberg E
Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121903. PubMed ID: 25471963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Validation of a digital mammographic unit model for an objective and highly automated clinical image quality assessment.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2013 Aug; 35(8):1089-96; discussion 1089. PubMed ID: 23207102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An adaptive algorithm for the detection of microcalcifications in simulated low-dose mammography.
Treiber O; Wanninger F; Führ H; Panzer W; Regulla D; Winkler G
Phys Med Biol; 2003 Feb; 48(4):449-66. PubMed ID: 12630741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
