These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20095266)
1. Trial of a proposed protocol for constancy control of digital mammography systems. Pedersen K; Landmark ID Med Phys; 2009 Dec; 36(12):5537-46. PubMed ID: 20095266 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Artifacts in digital mammography. Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Bosmans H JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):262-3. PubMed ID: 19203002 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: II. Artefacts/uniformity, exposure time and phantom-based dosimetry. Marshall NW; Cockmartin L; Bosmans H Phys Med Biol; 2023 Oct; 68(21):. PubMed ID: 37820686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Gain and offset calibration reduces variation in exposure-dependent SNR among systems with identical digital flat-panel detectors. Willis CE; Vinogradskiy YY; Lofton BK; White RA Med Phys; 2011 Jul; 38(7):4422-9. PubMed ID: 21859043 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics. Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A task-based quality control metric for digital mammography. Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ Phys Med Biol; 2014 Nov; 59(21):6621-35. PubMed ID: 25325670 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Quality control for digital tomosynthesis in the ECOG-ACRIN EA1151 TMIST trial. Maki AK; Mawdsley GE; Mainprize JG; Pisano ED; Shen SZ; Alonzo-Proulx O; Yaffe MJ Med Phys; 2023 Dec; 50(12):7441-7461. PubMed ID: 37830895 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis. Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography. Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3834-47. PubMed ID: 26133585 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. [Investigation of quality control and average glandular dose and image quality in digital mammography in Hokkaido]. Kurowarabi K; Abe H; Horita H; Kaneta K Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2011; 67(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 21532248 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms. Gagne RM; Gallas BD; Myers KJ Med Phys; 2006 Jan; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]