141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21080916)
21. The impact of calibration phantom errors on dual-energy digital mammography.
Mou X; Chen X; Sun L; Yu H; Ji Z; Zhang L
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Nov; 53(22):6321-36. PubMed ID: 18936520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Calibration phantoms for accurate water and lipid density quantification using dual energy mammography.
Cho HM; Ding H; Kumar N; Sennung D; Molloi S
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Jun; 62(11):4589-4603. PubMed ID: 28440226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Quantification of breast lesion compositions using low-dose spectral mammography: A feasibility study.
Ding H; Sennung D; Cho HM; Molloi S
Med Phys; 2016 Oct; 43(10):5527. PubMed ID: 27782705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Cumulative sum quality control for calibrated breast density measurements.
Heine JJ; Cao K; Beam C
Med Phys; 2009 Dec; 36(12):5380-90. PubMed ID: 20095250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Updated breast CT dose coefficients (DgN
Hernandez AM; Becker AE; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2019 Mar; 46(3):1455-1466. PubMed ID: 30661250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The readout thickness versus the measured thickness for a range of screen film mammography and full-field digital mammography units.
Hauge IH; Hogg P; Szczepura K; Connolly P; McGill G; Mercer C
Med Phys; 2012 Jan; 39(1):263-71. PubMed ID: 22225296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Compositional breast imaging using a dual-energy mammography protocol.
Laidevant AD; Malkov S; Flowers CI; Kerlikowske K; Shepherd JA
Med Phys; 2010 Jan; 37(1):164-74. PubMed ID: 20175478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Quantitative evaluation of breast density using a dual-energy technique on a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Lu KM; Yeh DM; Cao BH; Lin CY; Liang CY; Zhou YB; Tsai CJ
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2019 Jun; 20(6):170-177. PubMed ID: 31106990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Automatic Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density Using Artificial Neural Network-Based Calibration of Full-Field Digital Mammography: Feasibility on Japanese Women With and Without Breast Cancer.
Wang J; Kato F; Yamashita H; Baba M; Cui Y; Li R; Oyama-Manabe N; Shirato H
J Digit Imaging; 2017 Apr; 30(2):215-227. PubMed ID: 27832519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A method for calibrating three-dimensional positron emission tomography without scatter correction.
Bailey DL; Jones T
Eur J Nucl Med; 1997 Jun; 24(6):660-4. PubMed ID: 9169574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Breast phantoms for 2D digital mammography with realistic anatomical structures and attenuation characteristics based on clinical images using 3D printing.
Schopphoven S; Cavael P; Bock K; Fiebich M; Mäder U
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Oct; 64(21):215005. PubMed ID: 31469105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Estimation of compressed breast thickness during mammography.
Highnam RP; Brady JM; Shepstone BJ
Br J Radiol; 1998 Jun; 71(846):646-53. PubMed ID: 9849389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Dual-energy digital mammography: calibration and inverse-mapping techniques to estimate calcification thickness and glandular-tissue ratio.
Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2003 Jun; 30(6):1110-7. PubMed ID: 12852535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Technical Note: Validation of two methods to determine contact area between breast and compression paddle in mammography.
Branderhorst W; de Groot JE; van Lier MGJTB; Highnam RP; den Heeten GJ; Grimbergen CA
Med Phys; 2017 Aug; 44(8):4040-4044. PubMed ID: 28569996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Quantification of breast density with dual energy mammography: an experimental feasibility study.
Ducote JL; Molloi S
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):793-801. PubMed ID: 20229889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A large-area ionization chamber for portal image calibration.
Partridge M; Symonds-Tayler JR; Evans PM
Phys Med Biol; 1999 Jan; 44(1):271-9. PubMed ID: 10071888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Automated ultrasound scanning on a dual-modality breast imaging system: coverage and motion issues and solutions.
Sinha SP; Goodsitt MM; Roubidoux MA; Booi RC; LeCarpentier GL; Lashbrook CR; Thomenius KE; Chalek CL; Carson PL
J Ultrasound Med; 2007 May; 26(5):645-55. PubMed ID: 17460006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Reproducing two-dimensional mammograms with three-dimensional printed phantoms.
Badal A; Clark M; Ghammraoui B
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2018 Jul; 5(3):033501. PubMed ID: 30035152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Qualitative JPEG 2000 compression in digital mammography - evaluation using 480 mammograms of the CDMAM phantom.
Schreiter NF; Steffen IG; Miller J; Fallenberg E; Poellinger A; Bick U; Diekmann F
Rofo; 2011 Jul; 183(7):650-7. PubMed ID: 21667423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
