275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19235392)
21. In-plane image quality and NPWE detectability index in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Monnin P; Verdun FR; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2020 May; 65(9):095013. PubMed ID: 32191923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Amorphous In-Ga-Zn-O thin-film transistor active pixel sensor x-ray imager for digital breast tomosynthesis.
Zhao C; Kanicki J
Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091902. PubMed ID: 25186389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging.
Shafer CM; Samei E; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):1004-16. PubMed ID: 20384236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Optimization of phosphor-based detector design for oblique x-ray incidence in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Acciavatti RJ; Maidment AD
Med Phys; 2011 Nov; 38(11):6188. PubMed ID: 22047384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images.
Vecchio S; Albanese A; Vignoli P; Taibi A
Eur Radiol; 2011 Jun; 21(6):1207-13. PubMed ID: 21193910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Implementation and evaluation of an expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm for gamma emission breast tomosynthesis.
Gong Z; Klanian K; Patel T; Sullivan O; Williams MB
Med Phys; 2012 Dec; 39(12):7580-92. PubMed ID: 23231306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Segmented separable footprint projector for digital breast tomosynthesis and its application for subpixel reconstruction.
Zheng J; Fessler JA; Chan HP
Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):986-1001. PubMed ID: 28058719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis: investigation of the effects of system geometry and reconstruction parameters using a linear system approach.
Hu YH; Zhao B; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5242-52. PubMed ID: 19175083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Design and characterization of a spatially distributed multibeam field emission x-ray source for stationary digital breast tomosynthesis.
Qian X; Rajaram R; Calderon-Colon X; Yang G; Phan T; Lalush DS; Lu J; Zhou O
Med Phys; 2009 Oct; 36(10):4389-99. PubMed ID: 19928069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Evaluation of the imaging properties of an amorphous selenium-based flat panel detector for digital fluoroscopy.
Hunt DC; Tousignant O; Rowlands JA
Med Phys; 2004 May; 31(5):1166-75. PubMed ID: 15191306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Optimization of contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Analysis using a cascaded linear system model.
Hu YH; Scaduto DA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2017 Jan; 44(1):43-56. PubMed ID: 28044312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Accurate MTF measurement in digital radiography using noise response.
Kuhls-Gilcrist A; Jain A; Bednarek DR; Hoffmann KR; Rudin S
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):724-35. PubMed ID: 20229882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Experimental phantom lesion detectability study using a digital breast tomosynthesis prototype system.
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Lell M; Böhner C; Bautz WA; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2006 Dec; 178(12):1219-23. PubMed ID: 17136645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Oblique reconstructions in tomosynthesis. II. Super-resolution.
Acciavatti RJ; Maidment AD
Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):111912. PubMed ID: 24320445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparison study of reconstruction algorithms for prototype digital breast tomosynthesis using various breast phantoms.
Kim YS; Park HS; Lee HH; Choi YW; Choi JG; Kim HH; Kim HJ
Radiol Med; 2016 Feb; 121(2):81-92. PubMed ID: 26383027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Spatial resolution improvement and dose reduction potential for inner ear CT imaging using a z-axis deconvolution technique.
McCollough CH; Leng S; Sunnegardh J; Vrieze TJ; Yu L; Lane J; Raupach R; Stierstorfer K; Flohr T
Med Phys; 2013 Jun; 40(6):061904. PubMed ID: 23718595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Monte-Carlo simulation of a slot-scanning digital mammography system for tomosynthesis.
Kulkarni M; Dendere R; Nicolls F; Douglas TS
J Xray Sci Technol; 2016; 24(2):191-206. PubMed ID: 27002901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
