144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18649467)
1. Comparison of slot scanning digital mammography system with full-field digital mammography system.
Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Geiser W; Chen L; Arribas E; Stephens T; Davis PL; Ayyar GP; Dogan BE; Nguyen VA; Whitman GJ; Yang WT
Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2339-46. PubMed ID: 18649467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Receiver operating characteristic analysis for the detection of simulated microcalcifications on mammograms using hardcopy images.
Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Whitman GJ; Yang WT; Dempsey PJ; Nguyen V; Ice MF
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Aug; 51(16):3901-19. PubMed ID: 16885614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Microcalcification detectability using a bench-top prototype photon-counting breast CT based on a Si strip detector.
Cho HM; Ding H; Barber WC; Iwanczyk JS; Molloi S
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):4401-10. PubMed ID: 26133636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Visibility of simulated microcalcifications--a hardcopy-based comparison of three mammographic systems.
Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Whitman GJ; Johnston DA; Yang WT; Selinko V; Arribas E; Dogan B; Kappadath SC
Med Phys; 2005 Jan; 32(1):182-94. PubMed ID: 15719969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.
Peters S; Hellmich M; Stork A; Kemper J; Grinstein O; Püsken M; Stahlhut L; Kinner S; Maintz D; Krug KB
Invest Radiol; 2017 Apr; 52(4):206-215. PubMed ID: 27861206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).
Rong XJ; Shaw CC; Johnston DA; Lemacks MR; Liu X; Whitman GJ; Dryden MJ; Stephens TW; Thompson SK; Krugh KT; Lai CJ
Med Phys; 2002 Sep; 29(9):2052-61. PubMed ID: 12349926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector.
Carton AK; Acciavatti R; Kuo J; Maidment AD
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):920-8. PubMed ID: 19378752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.
Feng SS; Sechopoulos I
Radiology; 2012 Apr; 263(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 22332070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging: scatter and nonuniformity corrections.
Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2005 Nov; 32(11):3395-408. PubMed ID: 16372415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography with new reconstruction and new processing for dose reduction.
Endo T; Morita T; Oiwa M; Suda N; Sato Y; Ichihara S; Shiraiwa M; Yoshikawa K; Horiba T; Ogawa H; Hayashi Y; Sendai T; Arai T
Breast Cancer; 2018 Mar; 25(2):159-166. PubMed ID: 28956298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Full-field digital mammography: a phantom study for detection of microcalcification].
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Schorn C; Funke M; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2000 Jul; 172(7):646-50. PubMed ID: 10962993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Full-field digital mammography: dose-dependent detectability of breast lesions and microcalcinosis].
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Schorn C; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2000 Dec; 172(12):1052-6. PubMed ID: 11199434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model.
Krug KB; Stützer H; Girnus R; Zähringer M; Gossmann A; Winnekendonk G; Lackner K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):399-407. PubMed ID: 17242248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
