135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19885317)
1. Usefulness of a small-field digital mammographic imaging system using parabolic polycapillary optics as a diagnostic imaging tool: a preliminary study.
Chon KS; Park JG; Son HH; Kang SH; Park SH; Kim HW; Kim HS; Yoon KH
Korean J Radiol; 2009; 10(6):604-12. PubMed ID: 19885317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography.
Nishino TK; Wu X; Johnson RF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):960-3. PubMed ID: 16177415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Monochromatic x-rays in digital mammography.
Lawaczeck R; Arkadiev V; Diekmann F; Krumrey M
Invest Radiol; 2005 Jan; 40(1):33-9. PubMed ID: 15597018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
Dance DR; Thilander AK; Sandborg M; Skinner CL; Castellano IA; Carlsson GA
Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1056-67. PubMed ID: 11271898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images.
Chakraborty DP
J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 10036663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Imaging characteristics of x-ray capillary optics in digital mammography.
Kruger DG; Abreu CC; Hendee EG; Kocharian A; Peppler WW; Mistretta CA; MacDonald CA
Med Phys; 1996 Feb; 23(2):187-96. PubMed ID: 8668099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [First experiments for the detection of simulated mammographic lesions: digital full field mammography with a new detector with a double plate of pure selenium].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Adamietz B; Lell M; Anders K; Uder M
Radiologe; 2011 Feb; 51(2):130-4. PubMed ID: 21069512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Beam collimation with polycapillary x-ray optics for high contrast high resolution monochromatic imaging.
Sugiro FR; Li D; MacDonald CA
Med Phys; 2004 Dec; 31(12):3288-97. PubMed ID: 15651611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Radiation dose evaluation in a photon-counting digital mammography unit].
Matsubara K; Matsumoto C; Mochiya Y; Toda K; Noto K; Koshida K
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2014 May; 70(5):445-52. PubMed ID: 24858289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A linear array silicon pixel detector: images of a mammographic test object and evaluation of delivered doses.
Arfelli F; Bonvicini V; Bravin A; Cantatore G; Castelli E; Palma LD; Michiel MD; Longo R; Olivo A; Pani S; Pontoni D; Poropat P; Prest M; Rashevsky A; Tromba G; Vacchi A
Phys Med Biol; 1997 Aug; 42(8):1565-73. PubMed ID: 9279906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
Engelken FJ; Meyer H; Juran R; Bick U; Fallenberg E; Diekmann F
Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Physical and technical aspects of digital mammography].
Hermann KP; Funke M; Grabbe E
Radiologe; 2002 Apr; 42(4):256-60. PubMed ID: 12063731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Radiologist evaluation of an X-ray tube-based diffraction-enhanced imaging prototype using full-thickness breast specimens.
Faulconer L; Parham C; Connor DM; Zhong Z; Kim E; Zeng D; Livasy C; Cole E; Kuzmiak C; Koomen M; Pavic D; Pisano E
Acad Radiol; 2009 Nov; 16(11):1329-37. PubMed ID: 19596593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
