159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19676013)
1. [Results of an automatic evaluation of test images according to PAS 1054 and IEC 6220-1-2 on different types of digital mammographic units].
Blendl C; Schreiber AC; Buhr H
Rofo; 2009 Oct; 181(10):979-88. PubMed ID: 19676013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Investigation of the performance of digital mammographic X-ray equipment: determination of noise equivalent quanta (NEQQC) and detective quantum efficiency (DQEQC) compared with the automated analysis of CDMAM test images with CDCOM and CDIC programs.
Loos C; Buhr H; Blendl C
Rofo; 2013 Jul; 185(7):635-43. PubMed ID: 23801376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Quantitative image quality measurements of a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
Rofo; 2013 Dec; 185(12):1188-94. PubMed ID: 23888475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Dose sensitivity of three phantoms used for quality assurance in digital mammography.
Figl M; Semturs F; Kaar M; Hoffmann R; Kaldarar H; Homolka P; Mostbeck G; Scholz B; Hummel J
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Jan; 58(2):N13-23. PubMed ID: 23257608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control.
Carton AK; Vandenbroucke D; Struye L; Maidment AD; Kao YH; Albert M; Bosmans H; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1684-95. PubMed ID: 16013727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Computation of realistic virtual phantom images for an objective lesion detectability assessment in digital mammography.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2011 Dec; 33(10):1276-86. PubMed ID: 21741291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Should processed or raw image data be used in mammographic image quality analyses? A comparative study of three full-field digital mammography systems.
Borg M; Badr I; Royle G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jan; 163(1):102-17. PubMed ID: 24692583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Chakraborty DP; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6):3202-13. PubMed ID: 22755704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis.
Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Campanini R; Bertolini M; Borasi G; Nitrosi A; Danielli C; Angelini L; Maggi S
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4198-209. PubMed ID: 17153399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems: first experiences within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme.
Thierens H; Bosmans H; Buls N; Bacher K; De Hauwere A; Jacobs J; Clerinx P
JBR-BTR; 2007; 90(3):159-62. PubMed ID: 17696080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. High-resolution imager for digital mammography: physical characterization of a prototype sensor.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Onishi SK
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Sep; 50(17):3957-69. PubMed ID: 16177523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
Lazzari B; Belli G; Gori C; Rosselli Del Turco M
Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Study of the performance change in digital mammography systems depending on the total number of examinations.
Kaya Karaaslan M; Muzoğlu N; Gündoğdu Ö
Biomed Phys Eng Express; 2022 Nov; 8(6):. PubMed ID: 36260966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Performance evaluation of a "dual-side read" dedicated mammography computed radiography system.
Fetterly KA; Schueler BA
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1843-54. PubMed ID: 12906203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
