144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18649467)
21. Detectability comparison between a high energy x-ray phase sensitive and mammography systems in imaging phantoms with varying glandular-adipose ratios.
Ghani MU; Wong MD; Wu D; Zheng B; Fajardo LL; Yan A; Fuh J; Wu X; Liu H
Phys Med Biol; 2017 May; 62(9):3523-3538. PubMed ID: 28379851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Quantitative analysis of radiation dosage and image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional synthetic mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Choi Y; Woo OH; Shin HS; Cho KR; Seo BK; Choi GY
Clin Imaging; 2019; 55():12-17. PubMed ID: 30703693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Visibility of microcalcification in cone beam breast CT: effects of X-ray tube voltage and radiation dose.
Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Chen L; Altunbas MC; Liu X; Han T; Wang T; Yang WT; Whitman GJ; Tu SJ
Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2995-3004. PubMed ID: 17822008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Microcalcification detection using cone-beam CT mammography with a flat-panel imager.
Gong X; Vedula AA; Glick SJ
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Jun; 49(11):2183-95. PubMed ID: 15248571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer.
Choi JS; Han BK; Ko EY; Ko ES; Hahn SY; Shin JH; Kim MJ
Eur Radiol; 2016 Aug; 26(8):2538-46. PubMed ID: 26628063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.
Ranger NT; Lo JY; Samei E
Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):962-9. PubMed ID: 20384232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations.
Garayoa J; Chevalier M; Castillo M; Mahillo-Fernández I; Amallal El Ouahabi N; Estrada C; Tejerina A; Benitez O; Valverde J
Eur Radiol; 2018 Feb; 28(2):565-572. PubMed ID: 28812190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging: noise reduction techniques.
Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Oct; 53(19):5421-43. PubMed ID: 18765887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [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]
35. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.
Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Funke M; Grabbe EH
Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2188-91. PubMed ID: 12195468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis.
Gennaro G; Bernardi D; Houssami N
Eur Radiol; 2018 Feb; 28(2):573-581. PubMed ID: 28819862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.
Yang WT; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Murphy WA; Dryden MJ; Kushwaha AC; Sahin AA; Johnston D; Dempsey PJ; Shaw CC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):W576-81. PubMed ID: 17114508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography.
Yip WM; Pang SY; Yim WS; Kwok CS
Br J Radiol; 2001 Jul; 74(883):621-8. PubMed ID: 11509398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
